|
Posted by Kris Krieger on October 5, 2006, 6:56 pm
>
>>
>>> Just thought I might get more opinions if I broke the question out
>> into
>>> its own discussion.
>>>
>>> I'm kind of surprised people haven't sounded out *AGAINST* the 36"
>>> railings. The local architects I've talked to have said that 36"
>> looks
>>> too tall for a house that is trying to look old fashioned or
>>> traditional. They say it looks like a play pen. They say none of
>>> the 100+ year old houses had railings that high unless they've since
>>> been updated.
>>>
>>> - John
>>
>> Doesn't matter what they say, if there is a code (i.e., law)
>> requiring a 36" rail.
>>
>> Style is not merely a slavish, unthinking, unadaptive adherence to
>> something that soemone did 100 or more years ago.
>>
>> Remember that people were a lot shorter "way back when", so shorter
>> rails made sense (just visit some of the original historic farm
>> buildings - they're like tiny little doll-houses...) Ever been on an
>> accurate replica of an old sailing ship, or on board the
>> Constitution? Take a look at vintage clothing? And so on?
>> Everything looks to most of today's people (in North America at
>> least) like it was made for children.
>>
>> You have a brain, why are you fretting because a few people are
>> blithering about what people did 100+ years ago? Did they have 9'
>> ceilings back then? Did they have MDF? Nylon? Central heating?
>>
>> How tall is your *front door*? Is it tall enough for today's people
>> or did you also put in a short door? If the door, windows, storey
>> heights, and so on, are all scaled to modern standards, a short
>> little railing will look absurd. And even at all of that, style,
>> schmyle - what *matters* is the minimum height *required by the
>> code/law*. If you choose to ignore that, you'll probably not qualify
>> for home insurance (or have it cancelled if you lie about the height
>> and they come out to double-check it), *and* you would be liable if
>> somene fell over a shorter-than-required railing. And no, it does
>> not matter whether the person is a relative/friend, a pizza delivery
>> guy, or a peeping tom - hell, even people who were *robbing* places
>> have won lawsuits if they were injured because of "safty hazards".
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>> You asked and got answers before. Didn't like them and want
>>>> different?
>>>
>>>
>>
> Gee, my grandpa was 6'2" as was his. The house I owned in Boston(1859)
> had 11' ceilings on the main floor. Older colonial (pre-revolutionary
> and pre central heating) houses were designed to hold the heat in the
> winter so the ceilings were often low if there were no servants to
> keep those fireplaces going. BTW my 1859 house was built with central
> heating and inside plumbing on every floor.
> EDS
>
But generally, few places were that grand - heck, few are even today
<LOL!> 11' ceilings are pretty, well, grand <g!>
But judging from the forts, homesteads, and other old buildings I've
seen, also museum apparel, most people were smaller - not a matter of
genetics, a matter of diet. So if there were old places with low
railings - well, maybe the folks who built those were smaller. In any
event, it seems to be that these days, installing a 24" or even 30"
railing is like begging for someone to get hurt. IMO, it's worse then
no railing, becasue if there is nothing, people are probably nore likely
to be careful. A short rail offers enough of a "delusion of security"
to be dangerous.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap