Hello everyone,
A friend of mine wants to renovate her apartment and is currently stuck on the topic of flooring. At the moment, there is parquet flooring that is about 50 years old. The subfloor beneath the parquet isn’t in great condition, so her idea was to keep the parquet in place and lay PVC or linoleum on top. She thought of using PVC/linoleum because the existing doors would still open and close properly. As an alternative, we discussed the possibility of installing underlay with laminate flooring on top (since it’s more affordable) and shortening the doors by about 1 centimeter (0.4 inches).
Removing the parquet is not an option for her due to financial reasons.
Are these generally feasible and reasonable ideas? The parquet isn’t perfectly level either, so is it possible to simply lay something on top? Should moisture in the parquet be a concern if “impermeable” coverings like PVC are installed over it?
A friend of mine wants to renovate her apartment and is currently stuck on the topic of flooring. At the moment, there is parquet flooring that is about 50 years old. The subfloor beneath the parquet isn’t in great condition, so her idea was to keep the parquet in place and lay PVC or linoleum on top. She thought of using PVC/linoleum because the existing doors would still open and close properly. As an alternative, we discussed the possibility of installing underlay with laminate flooring on top (since it’s more affordable) and shortening the doors by about 1 centimeter (0.4 inches).
Removing the parquet is not an option for her due to financial reasons.
Are these generally feasible and reasonable ideas? The parquet isn’t perfectly level either, so is it possible to simply lay something on top? Should moisture in the parquet be a concern if “impermeable” coverings like PVC are installed over it?
aero2016 schrieb:
What a shame. Why not sand it down?That was my very first thought, but she doesn’t like the look that much, and according to the quotes she got from local tradespeople, sanding and sealing would cost about the same as new flooring. I can’t say if that’s accurate, but that’s what she said.
Hello "Ben-Man".
Unfortunately, I am only reading your post today, about three weeks after it was published, and I hope it is still relevant.
Regarding the topic you raised, here is some information:
Parquet flooring that was installed around 50 years ago should be handled with care when it comes to renovation.
By "renovation," I mean sanding, filling, priming, and resealing.
Why "handle with care"?
This is partly because the adhesives used for parquet at that time (unlike the ones used today, which are still uncertain) tend to become brittle over long periods of use. This also applies to bituminous adhesives that were commonly used back then.
This means that when the parquet is moved, for example through the mechanical action of sanding, the adhesive joint breaks. The parquet wood then detaches from the subfloor and can be easily lifted.
If parquet wood is covered with a vapor diffusion–tight top layer (such as PVC or linoleum), the same issue can occur, although for different reasons.
The result, however, is the same. Your concern or question about whether moisture should be taken into account is valid, but this can only be assessed if the specific conditions of the property are known (for example: where the existing screed is installed, above which room, and under what climatic conditions).
A (trained) parquet installer or master parquet layer will first check the adhesive bond at a lateral spot before taking on the foreseeable total damage.
If the system does not withstand a mechanical stress test during this trial, the parquet must either continue to be used as it has been over the past years or be removed—whether you want this or not.
Using laminate flooring as a second layer over the parquet might seem like an interim solution at first. However, I fear this idea will soon be met with disappointment.
Possibly, to conclude with your statement:
>Removing the parquet is not an option for you for financial reasons>
the affected parquet itself will not comply with this, to put it humorously.
When the damage has happened, there is no point in considering whether access (to the problem) should be secured. By then, the relieving thought comes too late!
Wishing you a safe decision: KlaRa
Unfortunately, I am only reading your post today, about three weeks after it was published, and I hope it is still relevant.
Regarding the topic you raised, here is some information:
Parquet flooring that was installed around 50 years ago should be handled with care when it comes to renovation.
By "renovation," I mean sanding, filling, priming, and resealing.
Why "handle with care"?
This is partly because the adhesives used for parquet at that time (unlike the ones used today, which are still uncertain) tend to become brittle over long periods of use. This also applies to bituminous adhesives that were commonly used back then.
This means that when the parquet is moved, for example through the mechanical action of sanding, the adhesive joint breaks. The parquet wood then detaches from the subfloor and can be easily lifted.
If parquet wood is covered with a vapor diffusion–tight top layer (such as PVC or linoleum), the same issue can occur, although for different reasons.
The result, however, is the same. Your concern or question about whether moisture should be taken into account is valid, but this can only be assessed if the specific conditions of the property are known (for example: where the existing screed is installed, above which room, and under what climatic conditions).
A (trained) parquet installer or master parquet layer will first check the adhesive bond at a lateral spot before taking on the foreseeable total damage.
If the system does not withstand a mechanical stress test during this trial, the parquet must either continue to be used as it has been over the past years or be removed—whether you want this or not.
Using laminate flooring as a second layer over the parquet might seem like an interim solution at first. However, I fear this idea will soon be met with disappointment.
Possibly, to conclude with your statement:
>Removing the parquet is not an option for you for financial reasons>
the affected parquet itself will not comply with this, to put it humorously.
When the damage has happened, there is no point in considering whether access (to the problem) should be secured. By then, the relieving thought comes too late!
Wishing you a safe decision: KlaRa
N
Nice-Nofret19 Sep 2020 10:58If you don’t want to renovate the parquet, the only real option is to lay a loose carpet over it; if it’s a rental, anything that damages the floor is out of the question.
Parquet from 50 years ago is often of very good quality and can be renovated multiple times; also, strips can be glued back if some are loose. If the floor is uneven, part of the screed might have collapsed?
Parquet from 50 years ago is often of very good quality and can be renovated multiple times; also, strips can be glued back if some are loose. If the floor is uneven, part of the screed might have collapsed?
Nice-Nofret schrieb:
If you don’t want to renovate the parquet flooring, your only real option is to lay a carpet loosely over it; if it’s a rental, anything that damages the floor is out of the question.
Parquet from 50 years ago is often of very good quality and can be renovated multiple times; loose strips can also be glued back down if needed. If the floor is uneven, the screed may have partly collapsed? We do not want to be overly cautious or create unnecessary concerns where there are none. Whether the parquet is actually “good” is partly pure speculation and has nothing to do with the brittleness of an adhesive. And the claim that the flatness of the surface—which the original poster never mentioned—implies limited load-bearing capacity of the screed is currently unfounded without further evidence.
This specialized forum is intended to provide general assistance, not to cause additional uncertainty.
Although the idea of adhesive brittleness is admittedly speculative on my part, it is not without reason. It is simply based on my professional experience that, given the limited selection of adhesives at that time, this situation is quite likely today.
A loose laying of a textile floor covering may be possible in very small rooms with limited use, but in a living room it does not comply with professional standards—and due to variations in indoor climate, wave formations in the floor covering would likely appear sooner rather than later.
This method of installation, which was fairly common about 20 years ago and involved only edge fixation with double-sided dry adhesive tapes, is strongly discouraged for larger rooms.
However, it is correct that any work on a fixed structural layer connected to the building is definitely not within the tenant’s rights but exclusively under the authority and responsibility of the property owner.
Similar topics