Houses In Hungary With Loam Walls

woodbine wrote:

....

Do these walls offer good insulation?

Are these walls damp-proof, and do these houses suffer from damp?

Do these walls need lots of maintainence?

Does anyone have experience of these types of buildings?

Do they make a good long-term investment, or should I look for something with different construction, eg. Brick/stone?

Many thanks for any advice.

I don't know about these kinds of walls but I do know that most people want houses made out of bricks, not stone or loam. The cost of heating stone and loam houses would likely be rather high and they would almost certainly not be damp proofed. I have a house made of stone during the 1900s and there are damp issues. To avoid rising damp, the lowest floor needs to be at least 1.2m above ground level. It is also common to find damp in basements and cellars. Be especially careful about ground water. The storms in Hungary can be almost biblical and flash flooding can occur.

My opinion is to consider only the land value primarily and consider demolishing any house or building that is not made of brick. It can be cheaper to build a new house than renovate, especially when one considers the EC energy saving requirements these days. Also a lot of Hungarians bodged their houses when they built them themselves. An older house would need to be exceptionally attractive to qualify for renovation.

I'm not sure what loam means, "vályog" is I think adobe: Dried mud bricks.
There are a lot of very good houses made of this.
Not because these bricks are superior (from most aspects they are not), but because they were cheep and abundant: People could afford to build really thick walls providing great insulation and lots of thermal capacity.
You just have to be even more careful and observant when sizing one up for purchase.
For example these walls can not withstand water damage, so make sure the roof is well maintained, has enough overhang, no windowsills missing, etc.

So I say don't rule them out, but do be alert.

szocske wrote:

.....Not because these bricks are superior (from most aspects they are not), but because they were cheep and abundant: People could afford to build really thick walls providing great insulation and lots of thermal capacity.....

So I say don't rule them out, but do be alert.

One thing that might be worth considering (and I don't know if it exists in Hungary) is building a house out of straw bales. That has excellent thermal properties and is a cheap and flexible material when used correctly.

I have seen houses in Hungary with thatched roofs. I would not discount a house with a thatched roof. If it's done well, it can last a long time and is more eco-friendly than tiles.

It's possible to check out the older types of construction at the Skanzen near Szentendre.

The Skanzen is a great place to visit!
You'll learn thatched roofs in Hungary are traditionally made of reed, and called "nádtető".
I'd be wary of the fire hazard and all the animals living in there. Same with straw bales. Also in Hungary a kind of cheap plastic string is used in bailing, not wire, and if it breaks over time, the bale loses all integrity.

I recently read about Compressed Earth Blocks, and I'd be happy with those: no fire, no bugs or rodents, cheap, just keep it dry and lasts forever.

szocske wrote:

I'd be wary of the fire hazard and all the animals living in there. Same with straw bales. Also in Hungary a kind of cheap plastic string is used in bailing, not wire, and if it breaks over time, the bale loses all integrity.

I recently read about Compressed Earth Blocks, and I'd be happy with those: no fire, no bugs or rodents, cheap, just keep it dry and lasts forever.

There are no fire hazards with straw bale houses. They've been used for hundreds of years. The straw is highly compressed and there are no gaps for vermin to hide in. It's the same for thatched houses when done correctly. The straw bales are held together with wooden or metal pegs and are externally covered with chicken wire, then rendered with lime plaster to allow vapour permeability. This keeps them dry and keeps the vermin out as they don't like to chew on lime. So long as there's a vapour barrier between the building foundations and the straw to avoid it getting wet (otherwise it'll rot), it'll go on for years providing good service. It certainly won't burn.

The big thing about straw bales is that it's possible to build the non-load bearing walls extremely quickly when the house fram has been put up. And of course straw is a fantastic insulator which means low heating bills.

Google it!

Oookay, so it's not just the same bales we buy for winter feed for the goats piled on each other :-)

szocske wrote:

Oookay, so it's not just the same bales we buy for winter feed for the goats piled on each other :-)

No, it's like "engineering" straw bales. Ordinary bales made in a proper machine are quite strong, but there are also extra compressed ones which are extremely strong and can even by used as supporting elements in a structure. However, most SB buildings use other materials for the supporting structure (like wood, steel etc) and then infill the walls as straw bales.

Hi

My house in the south of Hungary is one of the oldest original houses in the village. It is built on rock on the ground floor and the upper floor is all 500mm thick loam walls. They have stood the test of time and have not fallen down. You have to treat them right and use correct coatings etc when painting and so on. The most important thing is to let them breathe. If they are coated with a non porous wether proofer then you are in for trouble as they will actually rot as the moisture inside has nowhere to go. I do occassionally get mould, in winter, on the front wall as it is a very cold wall. One of the biggest mistakes made here is to apply the new foam type insulation to the outside walls and this proves to be a disaster.

The walls of course are very soft and hanging things on them is problematic. I usually make a plug of wood tapered to the end, drill a starter hole and then hammer the wooden plug in very hard and this gives me a base to drill into for screws etc. I cover the plug before I hang anything up with a fine coat of filler mixed with paint. I gives a very neat job.

When I hung my two awnings up I drilled very carefully through the wall (all 500mm) and then put a screwed bar through with a plate (200mm by 50mm) and then nuts on both ends with the awning bracket in place and then tightened carefully. They have been up for 5 years now and have not moved and we get a lot of wind down here.

I hope this helps.

Cheers

First, always consult with a licensed architect in Hungary before purchasing a house. They can give you honest appraisals about all your questions. That being said, my "experience" below.

woodbine wrote:

Do these walls offer good insulation?

With stone or earth homes "R-Values" don't mean much. The insulating properties of such homes work instead by the principle of a heat sink based on the structure's thermal mass, also know as thermal diffusivity. Modern "Earthships" (rammed earth and concrete building) work in the same principle. Thus, if you buy such a house you will need thick walls for them to function well in both summer and winter. The walls in our stone house are 60cm thick. If you do not have a good heat sink in the wall mass the house will be difficult to keep warm or cool. But with a good heat mass it is not too difficult. It is 35C outside today at noon, but inside a comfortable 24C. Mostly done by passive thermal mass; I say mostly since the ceiling does have new insulation (note - you will have to re-insulate the ceiling or roof as older houses usually use a layer of dirt only as insulation). We heat by wood in the winter, and spend approximately 2 Euro per sq meter a month on heating each year. Not great, but also not bad for 19th century construction. Also, we have to "charge" the house in the fall. Takes about 2-3 weeks of inner heating to build up a thermal load for the winter. Thus, coming in the dead of winter for a week will mean the house will be cold, and the house will never feel warm during that week since it will have no thermal mass built up yet.

woodbine wrote:

Are these walls damp-proof, and do these houses suffer from damp?

In their original state: no they are not damp-proof.

But there are mitigation methods, both physical and chemical barriers, that can be applied to greatly help reduce damp issues.

woodbine wrote:

Do these walls need lots of maintainence?

If the walls are in good shape and not damaged, no. If the external wall has a original coating of lime wash, which lets the wall breath, simply reapply every 5 to 7 years like paint.

woodbine wrote:

Does anyone have experience of these types of buildings?

Hungarian architects and contractors do. Definitively consult some.

woodbine wrote:

Do they make a good long-term investment, or should I look for something with different construction, eg. Brick/stone?

It widely varies, but Hungarian house prices in many areas are flat outside Budapest. Have been for years. In fact, some of the expats in our area who built in the past 15 years are selling at pretty good prices and moving. Many say they are moving because Hungary is no longer the "great deal" in cheap food and services it once was. Which is true since Hungary is becoming more and more Western like in retail prices since joining the EU. But I for one did not move to Hungary to exploit cheap prices, I moved here because I like it here.


Final note: Many parts of Hungary around Lake Balaton have building restrictions. Especially in areas within or near Balaton Uplands National Park. In some cases entire village sections may be under protection. Such building can only be restored, not torn down. The status of a structure will be listed on its land paper which you can get from the local land office. And some of the most cheap older houses are still unsold because they have such restrictions and no one here wants to renovate them. Not saying this is always true, I am simply saying make sure and check before you buy if your goal is to demolish.

klsallee wrote:

....Thus, coming in the dead of winter for a week will mean the house will be cold, and the house will never feel warm during that week since it will have no thermal mass built up yet.

Oh, tell me about it. I've arrived in my house in the middle of winter to find it's -10 deg C inside and it takes weeks (even a month) to get it to normal temperatures. I've got similar issues with walls made out of ancient sponge. There's really no point in renovating old houses in Hungary unless its a labour of love or of some historical interest or there's some cash to be had under some environmental scheme.  The EC requirements on energy savings require the use of modern materials. Previous builders used just anything they could find. There was no grandioise ancient technique to it. They just made walls of rubble, slapped it altogether and covered it up with plaster/paint. They seem to have made up designs as they went along and they always seem to chosen strange layouts internally (what were people thinking??).  My own experience is that the cost of putting things right is often more than cost of a new house.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The EC requirements on energy savings require
the use of modern materials.

My understanding is the EC, and all its laws and regulations, was absorbed into the EU with the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 and then ceased to exist. Of course Wikipedia could be wrong..... Or do you mean CE certification of building materials?

Aside from that, building regulations for energy efficiency can only mitigate for human behavior, not control it. Some of the modern houses where I live have their air conditioners going today. My only energy use today is my computer since I don't need an air conditioner. Which is being more energy efficient today? Of course, total energy efficiency is a long term issue and singular hot days in July are not an overall indicator of total efficiency which must be calculated from actual long term use. But don't sell old building methods short off of hand.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Previous builders used just anything they could find.

This is more true of structures built during the past 60 years than structures built before that period (there are of course more gross regional and local limited exceptions)

fluffy2560 wrote:

There was no grandioise ancient technique to it. They just made walls of rubble, slapped it altogether and covered it up with plaster/paint.

Modern thinking often thinks, sometimes erroneously, that all modern methods always trump ancient techniques which were perfected over large periods of trial and error. During the post WWII period construction methods were sub par. No debate. Most (but not all) structures in this time frame have no significant legal historical protection and are more likely easy candidates for demolition and rebuilding. For older structures --- well it varies.

fluffy2560 wrote:

They seem to have made up designs as they went along and they always seem to chosen strange layouts internally (what were people thinking??).

I have seen my share of 2.5 and 3.5 dimensional houses in Hungary. But in some cases again it is important to look at the historical reasons for the construction rather than applying modern logic.  Some houses have nooks and crannies for preserves, wood or for energy and heating reasons.

fluffy2560 wrote:

My own experience is that the cost of putting things right is often more than cost of a new house.

Experience varies. I gave serious consideration to rebuilding. But after consultation with architects it would have been much more expensive to rebuild our house. So we renovated.

In short, as is true in any country, a home owner should seek out and get professional advise as to the best way to proceed.

Side Note: You mentioned straw bale houses. Excellent method of building walls. Have seen them build in California. Certainly an option I would consider if building if allowed; but explaining such building methods to the local land office may be difficult. Doing things outside the box here is not easy.