Wood burner or fireplace?

[egginacup]

I’m doing up my little Victorian terrace and have uncovered a hideous old 1930s fireplace in the front room. I’d love to get a wood burner but they are pretty pricey, probably over £2k all in. My other option is to get a reclaimed or reproduction fireplace and get the chimney checked, which I reckon would be cheaper.

Do you think a wood burner is worth the investment, would it add more value than a fireplace? Personally I’d prefer a wood burner but can only really justify the expense if I know I’ll get it back when I sell, probably in a couple of years.

I like woodburners partly because they feel safer. I like the fact that you keep the front door shut and sparks can't spit out.

Get a woodburner. We had an open fire when we moved in and eventually swapped it for a woodburner because:

Sparks are contained by the doors (as stated by PP);
If you don't warm the chimney you will get a downdraft of smoke in your room;
With an open fire you will always get cold air coming into your room;
Make sure you get a cap for your chimney regardless of heating - birds will fall down otherwise and fly haphazardly around your house leaving deposits everywhere (bitter voice of experience);
A woodburner will retain heat after the fire has gone out;

Aargh that’s what I thought everyone would say... would you pay more for the house though, if it had a wood burner?

I would pay more yes. I love mine

Check whether you live in a smoke control area first.

I don't know if I would pay more but if there were two identical house, identical prices etc. and one had a wood burner and the other an open fire, I would take the woodburner house.

I love my open fire, I love building it, poking it, hearing the crackle of the wood burning or seeing a bank of glowing coals. We toast crumpets on it too, warming our hands on it, watching it.

I much prefer an open fire, even the glass door on the burner is such a barrier to the whole fire experience. But you use much less fuel with a burner, about 30%less, for the same amount of heat, they are much more efficient.

I do love a woodburner but I wouldn't put one in to add value. I think people know what woodburners cost (or if anything, they underestimate) and it'll be unlikely to add more than you spent on it.

My main dislike of open fireplaces is the heat you lose up the open chimney whenever the fire's not on. It adds to heating bills. But a woodburner is an extremely expensive sort of draught excluder.

Hmm, if it wouldn’t add value to the house I’m tempted to put in a nice reproduction fireplace instead, and get the chimney checked to see if it’s still ok to use. I probably would only use it in the winter, but it would be a nice focal point.

We have both (in different rooms!) and use the wood burner much more. It's easier to light, needs cleaning less often and heats the room quickly.

Wood burner if you want to use it for heat definitely. If just for show and the occasional fire, open fire fine but have the chimney checked as you have already mentioned!

Hmm personally I think wood burners best suit cottages or farmhouses. I think open fires with a surround better suit a 1930s house. Plus I'm not sure whether their current popularity will mean they date quickly.
Having said that I really do love wood burners!

From your description of the 'hideous 1930s fireplace', and you mention it's a Victorian terrace I'm getting that the aesthetics are important to you ? In which case the fireplace is much more authentic. If you are selling to someone who like 'period features' then a wood burner doesn't cut it.

If you are thinking 'which will I use more' or 'which is more efficient to heat the room' then probably a wood burner would be the right choice.

My personal taste is the open fire, but I guess that is personal taste.
I would get the chimney all checked first though. I live in a Victorian house. A LOT of different families have lived here over a LOT of different decades. Our chimney is not useable. Nor is a neighbour's who spent a lot of time (and money I understand) looking in to it. So many alterations had been done over the years it just couldn't be restored. So get that sorted first then decide after that.

Backforgood, I think you’re right, I would like it to look as authentic as possible... though I would have kept the 1930s fireplace if it was nice, but it is truly horrible- the tiles are burnt and stained, and it is huge!

If you live in a built up area or have any health issues e.g. asthma or are prone to bronchitis, it’s worth considering the environmental downsides of open fires and wood burners. Though beautiful and cosy they are starting to be recognised as exacerbating air quality problems - inside and outside the home. If you live in certain urban areas these may also be subject to legislative restriction in the next few years and so may not be a good long term investment.

I love my open fire, I love building it, poking it, hearing the crackle of the wood burning or seeing a bank of glowing coals. We toast crumpets on it too, warming our hands on it, watching it

Good news! You can do all of these on a wood burner! You have the option of opening or closing the door. So close it when no fire to keep draughts out or when youre not toasting stuff, then open it to get your crumpets in there.

We have both. The wood burner gives out much more heat, as the whole stove gets hot and radiates out the heat to warm the room and beyond.
The open fire in the sitting room, is a lovely feature and using the right smokeless fuel ( and getting up early to put more on) it can be kept in over night. It does make the room dusty and is not the most effient way to heat a room.
The problem of a draughty flue when the fire is not on, can be solved by putting a cheap pillow in a black plastic sack and pushing it up the flue.
You can buy expensive versions of these. You do have to remember it’s there before lighting the next fire!

this is science so no real place on mn - but fireplace under 20% efficient, woodburner about 80%. unless you hate the next generation and want to waste loads of fuel, get a woo dburner.

much prefer a nice efficient gas fire.

Having lived with both a wood-burner and an open fireplace I would have neither. Both pretty, both smell nice, both have their own problems to keep clean. (and I HATE with a vengeance the squeak of ash upon metal)

Sell your "hideous " fireplace. Bet someone would like it.

Either way get your chimney checked - you may need a liner installed. They are not too expensive but massively reduce the chance of a chimney fire and increase efficiency.

An open fireplace feels to me like it would cause a house to be colder (others may know better) but if you only want for resale then don't get a burner. A style of burner is such a personal choice and an expensive one to get wrong.

I would just put in a fireplace.

If you're in a smoke control zone I don't think you can have an open fire anyway. Plus they're draughty.

What about a coal-effect gas fire insert in a period surround?