Natural stone tiles in an open plan living area?

[audrey01]

We are going with underfloor heating in our open-plan living room/dining room/kitchen (an inverted L-shape with the living room off the hallway and the kitchen and dining room to the rear of the house, adjacent to the garden). As they are all connected, we'd like to keep the same flooring surface throughout. I've been reading that from an insulation point of view, a wooden floor (albeit engineered wood) is not really ideal, so I was thinking of tiles throughout the ground floor (including hallway and study in the side extension), some sort of natural stone tiles.

My question is - does it look tacky? I know it's popular on the continent but would it make the house hard to sell in the future? Why is it not a more common practice here in the UK? Do people feel they are too cold (shouldn't be if underfloor heating and use of rugs), impractical (again, tiles would be easier to install, keep the place super clean) or is it just a matter of different taste?

We're in SW London and we're undergoing full refurbishment of a 1930's house, aiming for a contemporary look.

We have just bought a 1930s house, would have seemed very strange to me if I viewed one tiled throughout! I have only seen this idea work in an ancient old cottage. Don't do it!

Its the kind of thing I'd need to see to make a judgment. It might look lovely. It might just look odd because its so out of character.
I do imagine the reason we don't have it because it would be cold.
But then in older properties you'd have quarry tiles or slate flooring etc

I have stone effect times from Amtico. How about something like that? Many people think they are real stone but they are lovely and warm on the foot.

Cold and hard, and you will break things on it. OK, might not be cold for you but the other two points stand. You have to wear shoes or slippers all the time or they're really hard on your feet.

Have you got somewhere you can store a bunch of rugs to put down in the winter? That's what a friend of mine did when she moved into a place that was terracotta tiled. Made for a lovely cool sitting room in the summer (if you can remember those) and energy wise was pretty efficient as it's easier to heat than to cool.

A friend of mine had them leading through the entrance, hallway and into back garden room in a period flat and to be honest I think they look off. They're also very hard, extremely slippery if you're coming in with wet feet (any splashes in the kitchen you will fall on your ass) and her kids were forever with big lumps from falling.

I really dislike tiled floors. Even if they are warm they are still hard. Stuff breaks on them, you have to lower your shopping bags like grenades. And you always have to wear so etching on your feet or you get sore legs.

*something

We have under floor heating and a mix of stone tiles and engineered wood. The sitting room is engineered wood and has been absolutely fine with UFH.

We're about to start doing up a house of a similar period to you and I am going with engineered parquet and UFH through the ground floor.

I think UFH and wood/engineered wood is fine, if that is what you are worried about. You just need to have it well fitted and to choose the right type of wood (width, length of board, bevelled edge etc), and to have it fitted by someone who knows what they are doing.

Personally I don't think stone tiles age well unless they are very rustic to start off with. For example, lots of the finishes will require repolishing and sealing etc, and if you go with anything like limestone, you get one juicebox dropped, or one cup of coffee spilled and you have a massive etched stain not bitter.

Thanks everyone for their feedback - the reason I was considering tiles is that a friend of mine just finished renovating her house (modernising a 1960s style property) and she has tiles with underfloor heating throughout her open plan kitchen/living area and it works really well. Another one moved into a new build (looks like a mews house), again she has large polished tiles in the living area, which is actually separated from the kitchen. So, the trend is there but it still might put people off in a 1930s-style house.

If we were to switch to engineered wood for he underfloor heating, what should we be looking for in terms of width, length of board, bevelled edges, etc. What is recommended?

There are loads of engineered woods that are fine with UFH - most will be esp the quality ones (Kahrs, Junckers etc). I think it is with solid wood that you need to be careful because it is more prone to expansion and contraction due to moisture levels which can lead to gaps. These are much less visible if you have beveled edges. Any warping is thought to be less visible in narrow boards BUT that is not to say you'll get any problems if you find a good fitter with experience in fitting wood with UFH.

We currently have a wide, long plank engineered oak Kahrs floor with UFH and there are no gaps or warping, looks as good as the day it was laid 6 years ago. The stone floor we had laid at the same time looks tired and I wish we'd had wood throughout TBH.

I also think that the shiny stone tile look is going to date quite quickly, personally, in the way that limestone/travertine bathrooms have.

Personally I hate tiled floors anywhere but a bathroom, can't even abide them in a kitchen.

Even with underfloor heating they are just so cold and hard which is the total opposite of what you want from a home.

Thanks a lot for the additional feedback.

Wildstrawberry - could you recommend a good supplier for the Kahrs engineered wood you've got?

Also, did you find that the UFH is enough for the room, or you needed additional radiators?

We find that UFH is more than enough. We have it throughout the house (no radiators at all apart from heated towel rails) and it's really efficient, much more so than radiators. We did toy with the idea of a wood burning stove as they look cosy but it would have been overkill so we left it.

I have heard good things about these guys and I think they have a London office.