Hello, we recently purchased a house dated 1900, it has a fireplace in the living room and bedroom. It’s double sided. The living room side is currently filled in but we are going to open it back up. However we want to make it a fireplace on each side not all one if that makes sense. Is there a way we can do this? They have also covered the chimney with the tin roof so we will have to build back the flue.
Converting a double sided fireplace to single
- Thread starter Leslie 01
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
If there is room for 2 fireboxes 2 smoke chambers in the old firebox area. And room for 2 seperate properly sized flues to run through the old chimney. Yes it is possible. But I can't see it costing less than $15000 if not more
danham
Burning Hunk
We just put a nice insert in one side of our see-through. As said above, see-throughs tend to have terrible draft. But one advantage when you install an insert is that it's easy to get at the back of the stove to make sure the air intake is clean and to measure stack temps. It also helps disperse heat.
-dan
-dan
That would only be at the buyers request. You don't need to fix all code violations to sell.
And chances are it never worked as a double sided fireplace. Very few do
jetsam
Minister of Fire
Also, your plan is going to require more than rebuilding the old flue. You need 2 complete, separate flues. Now you are talking about either decreasing the fireplace openings to the point that you can run them both on whatever liner you can cram two of in the old flue, or increasing the size of the old flue to the point that 2 appropriately sized liners fit to feed the old openings.
And then when you're done, you'll have two oddly tiny fireplaces and a $10k+ bill if you're lucky, or two normal sized fireplaces and an unspeakable bill if you're unlucky (they probably have to resize the entire masonry flue for the second option).
This is a lot of money and effort for a goal of getting a heater that was obsoleted over 300 years ago. I grew up heating with open fireplaces, and I can tell you that we replaced them for many excellent reasons. The reasons are even stronger now that they are secondary heat sources for most houses- now they are usually net BTU losses when in use because of the high draft, and the house already being 60+ inside.
It would be vastly easier on your wallet, both in terms of install costs and future heating costs, to pop a new hole in the roof and put a modern woodstove in a central location. That will actually heat the house, and give you something real nice to sit by that needs to be fed a couple times a day instead of eight or ten times a day.
And then when you're done, you'll have two oddly tiny fireplaces and a $10k+ bill if you're lucky, or two normal sized fireplaces and an unspeakable bill if you're unlucky (they probably have to resize the entire masonry flue for the second option).
This is a lot of money and effort for a goal of getting a heater that was obsoleted over 300 years ago. I grew up heating with open fireplaces, and I can tell you that we replaced them for many excellent reasons. The reasons are even stronger now that they are secondary heat sources for most houses- now they are usually net BTU losses when in use because of the high draft, and the house already being 60+ inside.
It would be vastly easier on your wallet, both in terms of install costs and future heating costs, to pop a new hole in the roof and put a modern woodstove in a central location. That will actually heat the house, and give you something real nice to sit by that needs to be fed a couple times a day instead of eight or ten times a day.
I will second pretty much everything jetsam said but you could also use that exists structure and install an insert possibly 2 back to back if there is room.
jetsam
Minister of Fire
Could also be real expensive, who knows what state that abandoned chimney is in. Probably got abandoned for a reason. But cheaper and better than building a larger new chimney inside an existing structure for sure.
In a 1900s balloon framed house, moving vertical framing is not so easy. It is possible that the masonry has vertical studs around it that go from the bottom floor to the attic (and further possible that after all this time, the mortar has gone and the framing is holding up the chimney to some extent).
I would still inspect the old chimney to see if it is a hazard, but using it to hold a new liner would be plan B, to be used only if the wife shot me down for a new roof penetration.
It probably got abandoned because it didn't work double sided. They closed off one side and it still didn't work well. They didn't build double sided fireplaces really untill the 60s or 70s so I doubt the structure is that bad really. It just seems like a waste to not use that structure. And it really would not cost any more to install an insert probably quite a bit less than a seperate freestanders with hearth and chimney. But without inspecting it I can't sayCould also be real expensive, who knows what state that abandoned chimney is in. Probably got abandoned for a reason. But cheaper and better than building a larger new chimney inside an existing structure for sure.
In a 1900s balloon framed house, moving vertical framing is not so easy. It is possible that the masonry has vertical studs around it that go from the bottom floor to the attic (and further possible that after all this time, the mortar has gone and the framing is holding up the chimney to some extent).
I would still inspect the old chimney to see if it is a hazard, but using it to hold a new liner would be plan B, to be used only if the wife shot me down for a new roof penetration.
Okay so after further investigation we have found that they are two separate fireplaces just back to back (yes I feel silly). The living room one was completely bricked in. We busted through all of them and found that it is indeed two separate fireplaces. Which is great because that’s what I wanted. When I took all the paper out of the bedroom one they had all shoved up in there tons of soot just came pouring out. Same as the living room side when we busted through the bricks. This is definitely part of the original house built in 1900. We are having our crawl space dug out and now can see the fireplace under the floor and it’s just massive! We want to use it. I just don’t know where to begin. I’m okay with a hole being cut in the roof to be able to have these functional and my husband too as it’s just tin.
Ok if they are original they will each need liners and possibly need new fireboxes and smoke chambers built. By code you can't have a fireplace in the bedroom so no reputable chimney guy should make that one functional. I would stick a gas insert in it
spudman99
Feeling the Heat
Not to derail the thread, I was not aware of this. I have seen bedroom wood burning fireplaces in my area (not often) in homes built in the 1980's. Gas fireplaces are more common (still not often) but also seen in bedrooms in new homes built in the late 1980's. Is this a new code issue or am I just not understanding it properly?
Nope not a new code at all it wasn't allowed in the 80s either. A sealed combustion gas fireplace or insert is fine
Similar threads
