Durability and Cost
The questions of durability and relative costs of aluminum or
vinyl siding compared to the maintenance cost of historic materials
are complex. It is important to consider these questions carefully
because both types of siding are marketed as long lasting, low
maintenance materials. Assuming that the substitute sidings are
not damaged, and that they will weather and age normally, there
will be inevitable changes in color and gloss as time passes.
A normal application of aluminum or vinyl siding is likely to
cost from two to three times as much as a good paint job on wood
siding. A sensitive application, retaining existing trim, will
cost more. Therefore, to break even on expense, the new siding
should last as long as two or three paintings before requiring
maintenance. On wood two coats of good quality paint on a properly
prepared surface can last from 8 to 10 years, according to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. If a conservative life of seven
years is assumed for paint on wood, then aluminum and vinyl siding
should last 15 to 21 years before requiring additional maintenance,
to break even with the maintenance cost for painting wood siding.
Once painted, the aluminum and vinyl siding will require repainting
with the same frequency as wood.
While aluminum siding can dent upon impact and the impact resistance
of vinyl siding decreases in low temperatures and, therefore,
is susceptible to cracking from sharp impact, these materials
are generally not more vulnerable than wood siding and shingles.
All siding materials are subject to damage from storm, fire, and
vandalism; however, there is a major difference in the repairability
of wood siding versus substitute materials such as aluminum and
vinyl. Although they can all be repaired, it is much easier to
repair wood siding and the repair, after painting, is generally
imperceptible. In addition, a major problem in the repairability
of aluminum and vinyl siding, as mentioned above, is matching
color since the factory finishes change with time. Matching the
paint for wood siding has a greater likelihood of success.
Energy
Because of high fuel costs, there is a concern for energy conservation
in historic materials as well as in substitute materials. Because
aluminum and vinyl siding can be produced with an insulating backing,
these products are sometimes marketed as improving the thermal
envelope of a historic building. The aluminum and vinyl material
themselves are not good insulators, and the thickness of any insulating
backing would, of necessity, be too small to add to the energy
efficiency of a historic building. What energy savings did accrue
as a result of a siding application would probably be as much
the result of the creation of an air space between the old and
new siding as the addition of insulating material. If the historic
wood siding were removed in the course of installing the aluminum
or vinyl siding (even with an insulating backing), the net result
would likely be a loss in overall thermal efficiency for the exterior
sheathing.
Preservation Briefs Number 3, "Conserving Energy in Historic
Buildings," notes that the primary sources of energy loss
in small frame buildings are the doors, windows and roof. It is,
therefore, more cost-effective to apply storm windows, weatherstripping
and attic insulation than to treat the sidewalls of these structures.
There are numerous publications on energy retrofitting which explain
techniques of determining cost-effectiveness based on utility costs,
R-factors or materials and initial cost of the treatment. Persons
interested in this approach may wish to read "Retrofitting
Existing Houses for Energy Conservation: An Economic Analysis"
published by the National Bureau of Standards, or the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development booklet "In the Bank or
Up the Chimney." One such study in Providence, Rhode Island,
determined that for a two-story house, twenty-five feet square,
the payback period for twenty-three storm windows, two storm doors
and six inches of attic insulation (R-20) was 4.4 years while the
payback period of aluminum siding with an R-factor of 2.5 was 29.96
years. Most of the information which is available supports the
position that aluminum or vinyl siding will not have a reasonable
payback on an energy-saving basis alone.