House was built in 1929, plaster walls throughout.

I have been unable to convince my beautiful lady (she may wind up seeing
this) to let me try to refinish the existing hardwood floor under the carpet
we tore up (living room, first floor, with basement underneath). In
addition, a friend whose opinion I trust said I should go ahead and replace
the diagonal tongue-in-groove subfloor as well (it creaks like absolute
crazy along every inch, even when the 20-lb dog walks around; every step is
squeak-squeak-groan-creak). I was hesitant to do this, because I'm all
about trying to keep as much original stuff as possible (I'm one of those
grizzled old-timers that believes, whether I have proof for it or not, that
they just did things better "back in the day"), but I can see his point
about possibly needing to level the floor out better, plus, with the amount
of creaking we've got, and with the floor visibly bowing under one's feet
when we walk around, the number of screws we'd have to re-tighten, shims to
put in under the original subfloor, etc., it would just be better to rip it
all up and put in plywood subfloor. The joists don't seem to be the
problem, but even if they are, I'd rather fix it at its source (adding joist
shims before doing the floor) than keep ramming the little shim here and
there in 500 places.

AAAAANYWAY, my question is this: these are plaster walls, and the subfloor
goes farther underneath the wall than I will be able to get to to remove the
subfloor in the room completely. I can use a whipsaw and remove it up to
flush with the inside surface of the wall, but there's still going to be
little pieces/strips of subfloor under the wall where I can't get to to
remove it. Is that bad? Would a lot of you call that a botch job, to
remove as much subfloor as we can possibly get to, but leaving that little
amount under the actual wall? The guy advising me says there's really
nothing else to do; the original builders (or at least, whoever did this
room as it is now) did the floor, then they did the walls on top of it, so I
can't get access under wall to remove the small amount of subfloor under the
plaster wall.

So we're going to put in little spacers in between the joists up to the edge
of the wall, just to have surfaces to nail the edge of the subfloor into,
but there's still going to be little strips of subfloor under the actual
wall.

Again; is this normal, or would it be considered cuttng corners/botching the
job/leaving heartache for future work?

Any advice, opinions, etc. would be appreciated, and thanks for reading.

"CompleteNewb" wrote in message
. ..
House was built in 1929, plaster walls throughout.

I have been unable to convince my beautiful lady (she may wind up seeing
this) to let me try to refinish the existing hardwood floor under the
carpet we tore up (living room, first floor, with basement underneath).
In addition, a friend whose opinion I trust said I should go ahead and
replace the diagonal tongue-in-groove subfloor as well (it creaks like
absolute crazy along every inch, even when the 20-lb dog walks around;
every step is squeak-squeak-groan-creak). I was hesitant to do this,
because I'm all about trying to keep as much original stuff as possible
(I'm one of those grizzled old-timers that believes, whether I have proof
for it or not, that they just did things better "back in the day"), but I
can see his point about possibly needing to level the floor out better,
plus, with the amount of creaking we've got, and with the floor visibly
bowing under one's feet when we walk around,
(snip)
Red Flag! BOWING when you walk around? Bowing as in warped hardwood riding
above the subloor, or bowing as in the entire floor bouncing or flexing when
you walk, joists and all? What size joists, what spacing, and what span?
What is holding up the ends? I'm not expert enough to run the numbers in my
head, but others on here are. Even if the size and span are within modern
specs, if it was never cross-braced properly, that may explain a whole lot
of the squeaking. The time for expert advice is before you rip everything
apart, so the engineer or architect (or even a well-experienced carpernter)
can see the 'as found' condition. The floor system may well need more than
shims- once you have it opened up, you may well need some or all of the
joists sistered (which is an easy way to level the topside) and/or a helper
crossbeam added in the basement. Nothing wrong with diagonal 1x as the
subfloor if it is in good condition and well fastened, but if the topside is
uneven, a modern subfloor will definitely make the new floor easier to lay.
If it is only a little uneven, a common fix is a thin plywood overlay, but
if you strip back to the joists, construction adhesive and screws will make
a very stiff floor for you.
As to your posted question about how to transition to the old subfloor
buried under the walls- yeah, just add blocking or a sistered piece of 2x6
or something to give a good nailer and catch the weight. As long as the
joint is buried up under the baseboard you will be fine. The doorways will
be harder than the walls, especially if the floor in adjoining room is out
of level. A feathered threshold strip, whittled to fit, is a common
solution. The subfloor, in the last 90-100 years, pretty much always goes
under the walls- you lay the joists, deck them over, then build and tilt up
the walls over. Some styles of balloon framing would be the only exception I
can think of.

With the kind of money you will be sinking into this, even if you do some or
all of the work yourself, a few hundred for a professional site survey,
would be real cheap insurance. IMHO, of course.

aem sends....

"CompleteNewb" wrote in message
. ..
House was built in 1929, plaster walls throughout.

I have been unable to convince my beautiful lady (she may wind up seeing
this) to let me try to refinish the existing hardwood floor under the
carpet we tore up (living room, first floor, with basement underneath).
In addition, a friend whose opinion I trust said I should go ahead and
replace the diagonal tongue-in-groove subfloor as well (it creaks like
absolute crazy along every inch, even when the 20-lb dog walks around;
every step is squeak-squeak-groan-creak). I was hesitant to do this,
because I'm all about trying to keep as much original stuff as possible
(I'm one of those grizzled old-timers that believes, whether I have proof
for it or not, that they just did things better "back in the day"), but I
can see his point about possibly needing to level the floor out better,
plus, with the amount of creaking we've got, and with the floor visibly
bowing under one's feet when we walk around, the number of screws we'd
have to re-tighten, shims to put in under the original subfloor, etc., it
would just be better to rip it all up and put in plywood subfloor. The
joists don't seem to be the problem, but even if they are, I'd rather fix
it at its source (adding joist shims before doing the floor) than keep
ramming the little shim here and there in 500 places.

AAAAANYWAY, my question is this: these are plaster walls, and the
subfloor goes farther underneath the wall than I will be able to get to to
remove the subfloor in the room completely. I can use a whipsaw and
remove it up to flush with the inside surface of the wall, but there's
still going to be little pieces/strips of subfloor under the wall where I
can't get to to remove it. Is that bad? Would a lot of you call that a
botch job, to remove as much subfloor as we can possibly get to, but
leaving that little amount under the actual wall? The guy advising me
says there's really nothing else to do; the original builders (or at
least, whoever did this room as it is now) did the floor, then they did
the walls on top of it, so I can't get access under wall to remove the
small amount of subfloor under the plaster wall.

So we're going to put in little spacers in between the joists up to the
edge of the wall, just to have surfaces to nail the edge of the subfloor
into, but there's still going to be little strips of subfloor under the
actual wall.

Again; is this normal, or would it be considered cuttng corners/botching
the job/leaving heartache for future work?

Any advice, opinions, etc. would be appreciated, and thanks for reading.

No problem. Just add subfloor supports secured to the existing joists if
needed along the walls. Caulking, the new flooring, baseboards, and shoe
mold (if used) will cover any gaps. There is no practical way (or need) to
replace wood under a wall without removing the wall.

Don Young

There is nothing wrong with a diagonal tongue in groove subfloor. Before
ripping it out make sure that the subfloor is your problem.


"CompleteNewb" wrote in message
. ..
House was built in 1929, plaster walls throughout.

I have been unable to convince my beautiful lady (she may wind up seeing
this) to let me try to refinish the existing hardwood floor under the
carpet we tore up (living room, first floor, with basement underneath).
In addition, a friend whose opinion I trust said I should go ahead and
replace the diagonal tongue-in-groove subfloor as well (it creaks like
absolute crazy along every inch, even when the 20-lb dog walks around;
every step is squeak-squeak-groan-creak). I was hesitant to do this,
because I'm all about trying to keep as much original stuff as possible
(I'm one of those grizzled old-timers that believes, whether I have proof
for it or not, that they just did things better "back in the day"), but I
can see his point about possibly needing to level the floor out better,
plus, with the amount of creaking we've got, and with the floor visibly
bowing under one's feet when we walk around, the number of screws we'd
have to re-tighten, shims to put in under the original subfloor, etc., it
would just be better to rip it all up and put in plywood subfloor. The
joists don't seem to be the problem, but even if they are, I'd rather fix
it at its source (adding joist shims before doing the floor) than keep
ramming the little shim here and there in 500 places.

AAAAANYWAY, my question is this: these are plaster walls, and the
subfloor goes farther underneath the wall than I will be able to get to to
remove the subfloor in the room completely. I can use a whipsaw and
remove it up to flush with the inside surface of the wall, but there's
still going to be little pieces/strips of subfloor under the wall where I
can't get to to remove it. Is that bad? Would a lot of you call that a
botch job, to remove as much subfloor as we can possibly get to, but
leaving that little amount under the actual wall? The guy advising me
says there's really nothing else to do; the original builders (or at
least, whoever did this room as it is now) did the floor, then they did
the walls on top of it, so I can't get access under wall to remove the
small amount of subfloor under the plaster wall.

So we're going to put in little spacers in between the joists up to the
edge of the wall, just to have surfaces to nail the edge of the subfloor
into, but there's still going to be little strips of subfloor under the
actual wall.

Again; is this normal, or would it be considered cuttng corners/botching
the job/leaving heartache for future work?

Any advice, opinions, etc. would be appreciated, and thanks for reading.