Wood Flooring - Need Advice

[Assassin_012]

So I plan on changing/adding wood flooring to the house.
It will be my first time doing this. So, I'm not exactly sure if I should do this myself or hire someone to do it for me (though the price may be hefty right?).

Any advice on wood flooring in specific rooms (bedroom, living room, kitchen, etc..)?
I plan on doing a white wood flooring in the bedroom if that is okay/suitable.

My friend mentioned engineered wood flooring, and said its the best to go for.

Any recommendations to any websites/companies I can look into?

Thanks.

 

[Maccapacca]

Do it properly. Take off the skirting and run under. New skirting is peanuts. Scotia is horrid.

You can buy pre painted skirting.

A decent material price is about £30 sqm anything less you would be venturing into poor quality stuff.

 

[SPG]

Engineered flooring all the way, Laminate is fine for low traffic areas.

Expansion of laminate and engineered wood is a myth, its just harder to cut and get a nice edge.

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

Skirting from wickes mate the double sided chamfered/bull nose stuff is dirt cheap and comes pre painted, well undercoated
Dead easy to work with too

 

[Makhaira]

Do it properly. Take off the skirting and run under. New skirting is peanuts. Scotia is horrid.

You can buy pre painted skirting.

A decent material price is about £30 sqm anything less you would be venturing into poor quality stuff.

+1 to this. When I did my house I went the scotia route. When I next need to paint the glosswork I'll be removing the skirting and just replacing it outright.

 

[Bickaxe]

If you get someone to do it, expect to pay around £15psm or more if engineered and £10psm if laminate.

 

[LiE]

I'm finding quotes for solid oak floor very similar to engineered wood.

 

[Superficial]

Engineered flooring all the way, Laminate is fine for low traffic areas.

You've got that the wrong way round.

Laminate will last far longer than wood in high traffic areas, engineered or otherwise. The lacquer on wood will wear faster than good quality laminate by a country mile.

If you're buying for longevity rather than some favouritism for a real wood floor then you buy a high quality laminate by Pergo or Quick-Step et al. real wood scratches and shows the scratches and trust me as much as people say they will re-sand and re-polish - by the time they have to they will probably just buy a new floor...because it's a pain in the backside.

 

[ash_scotland88]

*thread jacking here*

Any one done wood inside outside, so pattern is duplicated over a set of bifolds. What is used to do this? Is it wood effect tiles?

 

[Martynt74]

I'd echo to just go with what you like the look of, we've had laminate for 6 years and replaced it only due to other work being done and wanting a change of style. It was still in good condition and i think only cost around £13pm

Likewise my parents have had their laminate fitted for >15 years and it still looks excellent.

As for fitting, it's an easy job and can easily be done by yourself, only tricky bits are under doorways/around the stairs if they're curved. As said, i've had to use some beading due to insanely old plaster being attached to some skirting and not wanting to deal with the mess that would come with removed it. Otherwise i hate scotia beading with a passion.

 

[Amp34]

You've got that the wrong way round.

Laminate will last far longer than wood in high traffic areas, engineered or otherwise. The lacquer on wood will wear faster than good quality laminate by a country mile.

If you're buying for longevity rather than some favouritism for a real wood floor then you buy a high quality laminate by Pergo or Quick-Step et al. real wood scratches and shows the scratches and trust me as much as people say they will re-sand and re-polish - by the time they have to they will probably just buy a new floor...because it's a pain in the backside.

Depends what you want. Real wood floors can easily last 60-100+ years with a little TLC and the occasional refinish. You're not going to get that with laminate.

Laminate is a good cheap material that looks ok, whereas wood is going to cost you a bit more in the long run but is a natural product, however like all natural products it requires a bit more care and upkeep (the same argument with pretty much every product - PVC windows Vs wood, stone tile vs ceramic/porcelain etc, etc.).

Do you want a low maintenance product and aren't too bothered if it isn't "real", or do you want something real that takes a bit more care? All personal choice - for me I can't stand fake stone look products - they stand out a mile, and I'm not a great fan of fake wood products either, so I'm certainly pro real stone and real wood products (engineered wood being considered real wood here).

Engineered wood is going to be easier than solid wood to lay yourself, and has more options to lay as well (float, glue, nail), and is more stable re moisture and humidity, something to consider if you're putting it on a concrete floor (with the relevant vapour barriers etc). A good EW floor can still be refinished a couple of times if done right (in part depending on the veneer thickness).

We have solid wood on our upstairs level and engineered downstairs (over concrete) and it's really nice. That said I would prefer carpet in some places - especially the bedroom. TBH we went with wood over carpet for much of it because of resale value than anything else.

Also another thing to consider is warmth. Carpet is going to be the warmest material, followed by wood, followed by laminate and LVT/P and finally stone/ceramic/porcelain tile. Especially important to think about if it's going over concrete without any UFH.

 

[Superficial]

Depends what you want. Real wood floors can easily last 60-100+ years with a little TLC and the occasional refinish. You're not going to get that with laminate.

Laminate is a good cheap material that looks ok, whereas wood is going to cost you a bit more in the long run but is a natural product, however like all natural products it requires a bit more care and upkeep (the same argument with pretty much every product - PVC windows Vs wood, stone tile vs ceramic/porcelain etc, etc.).

Do you want a low maintenance product and aren't too bothered if it isn't "real", or do you want something real that takes a bit more care? All personal choice - for me I can't stand fake stone look products - they stand out a mile, and I'm not a great fan of fake wood products either, so I'm certainly pro real stone and real wood products (engineered wood being considered real wood here).

Engineered wood is going to be easier than solid wood to lay yourself, and has more options to lay as well (float, glue, nail), and is more stable re moisture and humidity, something to consider if you're putting it on a concrete floor (with the relevant vapour barriers etc). A good EW floor can still be refinished a couple of times if done right (in part depending on the veneer thickness).

We have solid wood on our upstairs level and engineered downstairs (over concrete) and it's really nice. That said I would prefer carpet in some places - especially the bedroom. TBH we went with wood over carpet for much of it because of resale value than anything else.

Also another thing to consider is warmth. Carpet is going to be the warmest material, followed by wood, followed by laminate and LVT/P and finally stone/ceramic/porcelain tile. Especially important to think about if it's going over concrete without any UFH.

The thing about your comments is that I agree with most of it. But they don't actually rebut my point. Let's all agree that wood can last 60 - 100 years no argument here but after ONE year it WILL be visibly scratched and worn far more when compared to a high quality laminate in a high traffic area. Lacquer and polish scratches plain and simple. In my view people always plan to keep on top of their wood floor maintenance but never do - it's a total pain in the backside...have you ever sanded a wooden floor? Do you know what's involved? renting the machine, painting the floor with that stuff so you know where you've sanded?

take your pick of examples: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sanding+hardwood+floors

People need to realise that all products have their legitimate place else they would have no market and it doesn't always come down to cost and laminate has come a long way. To prove I'm not biased...I was gutted when I dropped my jigsaw in the middle of my newly laminated bedroom and smashed the laminate plank. It would never have looked that bad with a wood floor...I had to replace half the floor to replace one plank whereas with wood I doubt it would have noticed after a quick sand and polish...well maybe/maybe not. it would never have looked as bad though.

I'm not going to be drawn into the age old "wood looks better than cheap laminate" discussion because it's not always the case when compared to modern Pergo or quick-step laminate with scratch guard and water sealed. it's totally horses for courses and I usually end up agreeing with both sides.

let's also agree that wood is warmer too...for sure.

 

[Jokester]

My Pergo hasn't worn what so ever in 5 years of use.

Just don't water stand on the joints where it might soak in.

 

[Amp34]

The thing about your comments is that I agree with most of it. But they don't actually rebut my point. Let's all agree that wood can last 60 - 100 years no argument here but after ONE year it WILL be visibly scratched and worn far more when compared to a high quality laminate in a high traffic area. Lacquer and polish scratches plain and simple. In my view people always plan to keep on top of their wood floor maintenance but never do - it's a total pain in the backside...have you ever sanded a wooden floor? Do you know what's involved? renting the machine, painting the floor with that stuff so you know where you've sanded?

take your pick of examples: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sanding+hardwood+floors

People need to realise that all products have their legitimate place else they would have no market and it doesn't always come down to cost and laminate has come a long way. To prove I'm not biased...I was gutted when I dropped my jigsaw in the middle of my newly laminated bedroom and smashed the laminate plank. It would never have looked that bad with a wood floor...I had to replace half the floor to replace one plank whereas with wood I doubt it would have noticed after a quick sand and polish...well maybe/maybe not. it would never have looked as bad though.

I'm not going to be drawn into the age old "wood looks better than cheap laminate" discussion because it's not always the case when compared to modern Pergo or quick-step laminate with scratch guard and water sealed. it's totally horses for courses and I usually end up agreeing with both sides.

let's also agree that wood is warmer too...for sure.

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, just arguing the other side of the point, wood WILL last longer if looked after and for some people that's the better option. I can generally spot laminate a mile away, which is why I'm not a fan of it in my own home*. But then I am a very finicky person like that.

Your assertion that the floor will be scratched after a year isn't really true either. In a commercial environment, or with a couple of large dogs with unruly claws that may be the case, but in a normal residential situation it's just not, especially with newer prefinished coatings most wooden floors come with now. Yes, they scratch easier but not that easily.

And yes, I understand the work involved in refinishing a floor. Generally you're only going to have to do that every 20+ years however, so for most people it's probably only going to happen either just before they sell a house, or when they buy one, knowing they have renovation work to do.

* it does have its place though, although personally I'd go with LVP because it has all the benefits of Laminate but is even harder wearing and easier to put down. We were actually debating putting that downstairs instead of the EF, but decided for the reasonably small difference in cost we may as well go with EF.

 

[Superficial]

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, just arguing the other side of the point, wood WILL last longer if looked after and for some people that's the better option. I can generally spot laminate a mile away, which is why I'm not a fan of it in my own home*. But then I am a very finicky person like that.


Your assertion that the floor will be scratched after a year isn't really true either. In a commercial environment, or with a couple of large dogs with unruly claws that may be the case, but in a normal residential situation it's just not, especially with newer prefinished coatings most wooden floors come with now. Yes, they scratch easier but not that easily.

And yes, I understand the work involved in refinishing a floor. Generally you're only going to have to do that every 20+ years however, so for most people it's probably only going to happen either just before they sell a house, or when they buy one, knowing they have renovation work to do.

* it does have its place though, although personally I'd go with LVP because it has all the benefits of Laminate but is even harder wearing and easier to put down. We were actually debating putting that downstairs instead of the EF, but decided for the reasonably small difference in cost we may as well go with EF.

Ok I respect your argument and agree to disagree etc but have emboldened the part that I strongly believe is misleading and will lead to many people being deflated with their wooden floor once they realise that cons that go with the many pro's.

Wood floors in a high traffic area WILL be visibly scratched. There are no two ways around it. One only has to find any wooden floor and compare the doorways to the centre of the room or under a carpet never mind a hallway by the front door.

Oh and you may as well for get your good lady wearing high heels and keeping that shine alive on a wooden floor.

Furthermore your assertion about re-finishing floors every 20 years is completely illogical (it's the same as saying wood floors wont look visibly scratched on average until 20 years has passed)because re-finishing is done when a person feels the floor has lost it's zeal - the idea that you'd place an arbitrary 20 year limit on it is fool hardly because it's different strokes for different folks that being said we THEN have to consider that the ONLY way to truly bring your wooden floor back to life is to go through that back breaking work...but you can get polishing machines every now and again to bring back some zeal...but this is also costly and a hassle.This truth alone should be enough to at least make people think twice.

The truth is that a good quality laminate...assuming you liked the way it looked when you laid it, will look very similar after 5 years and a wooden floor will not.

However, if you are dead set on wood for whatever reason then nothing else will do which is a grand enough reason as any.

Re LVP - yes I agree...I found it cost prohibitive personally but I would still consider it funds permitting.

All that being said I must admit that, IF you are well aware of the maintenance time and costs a wood floor sets up a house like no other potentially.

EDIT: I have removed my exaggerated comments about not being able to polish wooden floors. floor polishing machines exist for a reason after all and I don't feel it impedes my point that much.

 

[Amp34]

If you're walking around your house with outdoor shoes on then I see why you have a problem. It's a bit like complaining that your carpet is ruined after a year because of all the mud you brought in from outside!

I think most families now (and in the past) take their shoes off at the door, it's difficult to scratch wood flooring with socks or slippers.

Of course the 20 years is an arbitrary time, it's an example of the realistic length of time that people will refinish the floor, and no it won't look as great after 20 years, but tbh I doubt much laminate floor is going to be down for 20 years anyway, you certainly need to replace carpet way before that 20 years or it looks awful. Yes laminate floor will look more consistent over the years, but wooden floors won't fall apart as much as you are suggesting, even in hallways and high use areas, as long as you're not trapping around with dirty outdoor shoes.

I'm not advocating wood flooring is for everyone, or should be everywhere*. I'm just contradicting your overly pessimistic opinion of real wood flooring.

*my personal opinion would be wood in living areas, carpets in sleeping areas and tile/LVT/LVP in kitchen and bathroom areas. Wood (and laminate for that matter) is just to cold and hard for bedrooms IMO, and will be too susceptible to water and stains/damage in kitchens and bathrooms. Any damage caused by outdoor shoes, sand and mud at external entrance ways can be mitigated by having smart, built in tile/rubber entry areas (although not completely necessary).

 

[Buffman]

I've got some pics here of Natura Oak wood flooring (engineered wood) . This was around £17 a square meter so I'm not sure I agree that you need to spend 30+.

I've had it about 6 months in the living room and its fine. Not particularly easy to put together in long lengths but it's doable.

(evidently cos of the time I've had it I can't comment on it lasting 100 years...). I expect it to last 10+ years fine however.

I've layer kahrs engineered wood flooring in my parents place also, and from what I recall it was bit easier to lay, however despite being more expensive it had a thinner veneer and scratched quite easily.

Spoiler

Living room is about 4*6m longest.

I managed to fit the study room with a lot more ease, due to the size and being used to it.