That is their standard response to all floors. Maybe the rare floor finisher uses waterborne poly. The answer depends on what kind of finish appearance you want, what expectations for wear you have, and how "historical" you may be willing to be. The list of potential finishes, least-durable (requiring frequent maintenance, but giving a unique and more historically-authentic appearance, to hard, bulletproof plastic-y and inauthentic): Bare floor: ages naturally, but will water spot and stain most easily. wood worn away by foot traffic, especially with a very soft wood like white pine. No color will be brought out except by passage of time and whatever dirt/patina builds up and as the wood oxidizes. Wax finish: low protection from water and wear, must be renewed yearly or more, potential to bring out some color in the wood; colored waxes are now readily available. Will be a very authentic soft finish showing much of the natural wood color and texture. Wax does not form a film. Oil finish: Lots of oils out there, most oil finishes do not form a film, so the wood still looks bare/natural. Colored oil finishes are possible, but may blotch a bit at first, this usually will fade when 100% dry. Water spotting still possible, and wood can still wear down. The wood's surface is still taking the wear, but it has been fortified because the oil has penetrated it. Some harder-drying oils, like 100% tung oil, Australian Timber Oil, and I think Landark, are fairly good at hardening the wood surface and are the most durable oils. Wear spots can usually be masked by the application of more oil as needed. Shellac is called a "spirit varnish" because it forms it's protective beautifying film by the evaporation of the alcohol solvent that liquefies it. As the alcohol evaporates very quickly, shellac is a fast-drying finish. Some shellacs contain wax as an impurity. It is added as an extender, and it does help somewhat to achieve a smooth rubbed-out finish when buffed with steel wool. The wax/impurity also shortens the shelf life and lengthens the drying time, while making the finish less water-resistant. In my experience, it's the wax that makes shellac get white water spots. I only use de-waxed shellac, which can be purchased ready-mixed (Zinsser Sealcoat) or made by dissolving flakes in alcohol. I use a lot of shellac for various things, including some floors in my house (and fine furniture finishes). The formula I use for floors is to sand to at least 120, with the grain, by hand, then apply two coats of de-waxed garnet shellac (the darkest colored shellac that really brings out the beauty and gives a base color that's very pleasing on old wood/old house context) and put on 4 coats of the Sealcoat for the wear layer. Six coats of garnet to reach the same film thickness would be awfully dark IMO. Scratches in the shellac floor can be easily touched up without the need to sand the whole floor. Shellac will always bond to shellac, so there is never any problems with blistering or peeling. Because shellac has no odor after the alcohol evaporates, and you can put on 4 coats in a day, it's really great for bedrooms or people with chemical sensitivity. Old-fashion oil varnishes are sometimes used, but the reasons poly is preferred is because it has more benefits for floors because it is harder, so people don't mess with non-poly oil varnish much at all. The only benefit would be that it could theoretically be removed by a chemical stripper so future refinishing would be possible without further sanding. Oil varnish gives a deep amber color to wood, especially your old white pine. Problems include long drying time, softness, difficulty to touch up without sanding. Easier to re-coat than poly, though, because it will stick to itself with lower risk of peeling. Film-forming oil finishes, like Waterlox, are sometimes the most appropriate non-poly floor finish for historic floors. The huge selling point (what sold me) is the need for no future sanding. As historic flooring fabric is a finite resource, and can only take so much sanding until it is worn beyond use, eventually one must consider replacement vs. conservation. Waterlox makes the case that since it can be scuffed and recoated there is never any need to fully sand the wood, so a stable condition on the old floor can be maintained for a long time. Waterlox is a thinner oil=based varnish made with tung oil (I can smell it!) along with other resins and solvents. It has a _very_ strong odor when being applied, as you are getting the effect of the solvent and the material all at once. You need an activated charcoal respirator made for VOC's, or you will suffer the effects. It stinks, OK? The curing time, during which the odor can be detected, will be about a month. The bad, toxic aroma is gone in a day or two. I chose Waterlox for my old kitchen floor. It has held up pretty well; it's now been almost 5 years and there are some scuffed-looking areas where the chairs sit. It's been great for spills, water, general traffic, etc. So I recommend it unless you have chemical sensitivities for aromatic organic compounds, or nut allergies (!) Tung oil is from a nut, BTW. We then come to Polys and other hard commercial-grade floor finishes, some of which are technically difficult to apply and have severe health threats if the proper measures aren't observed while applying. I have such limited experience with any of these that I cannot comment as to any particulars, except to state that they do not have it within themselves to be touched up, and any damage to an area however small usually calls for the whole floor to be re-sanded for a total refinish, or the spot would still be visible. These finishes last an amazingly long time, requiring only cleaning maintenance, and if the floor in question were a new hard wood, it would make the most sense to use the most long-lived finish you could obtain. But in your circumstance it's probably obvious by now that I would not recommend such a finish for your historic wood floor. Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to weigh all the characteristics within your specific context. Casey

Thanks brickeyee & airsome. This is a rowhouse with a flat roof, and in our neighborhood pretty much everyone's condensor goes on the roof, b/c the backyards are small & you can't stick the noisy condensor right under your neighbor's window. That being said, not many have central A/C. Are condensors the same size for Unico as for conventional? So if my architect says we need steel beams to support the condensor in traditional model (I'm assuming both for weight & vibration?), would you expect we also need the steel for Unico? Regarding efficiency, I would have thought that the bigger vents of conventional systems would have wasted more cooling, vs. smaller tubes. Why the lesser efficiency from Unico? BTW, regarding the ground floor question from the OP, our architect is designing most cooling on the 3rd & 4th floors, some on the second (parlor) floor, and none on the garden level, which is slightly below ground. His experience is that the lower floor will stay comfortable if there's some cross-breeze. Thanks again.

Before you consider removing the tile, go to a reputable source and get facts. I don't think it is ever advisable to do it yourself. It will take10- 20-30-40 years to know if you've caused yourself harm, and many people never get sick. Not worth the risk! I was bothered that there was carpeting over hardwood in my living room when we moved in. Pulled it up, discovered the floor could not be restored. Perhaps you can think of your floor that way, that it cannot be restored. And, also, we had beautiful hardwood installed over asbestos lino in our kitchen and dining room. It is fine to do that. Cover, do not remove asbestos flooring.

Thanks everyone! Yes, right now it is a combination. Kitchen, baths, bedrooms are all painted. It is the main hall, living and dining rooms that I would change that are stained now. Because they will be ripping everything out, we can put back whatever wood we like and either paint or stain it. Doors will all be stripped and redone too so that they could be whatever we want as well. I'm pretty sure that even if we paint, we will do some sort of hardwood. Insurance is prepared to cover it and even though I had a momentary thought of saving money and doing something cheaper so we could use the money to upgrade elsewhere, I just couldn't do that to my house. I would hear it crying everyday. I also know that people swear by MDF, but the few places I've used it, have always ended in disaster when water gets mixed in (not sure why but water always seems to find it). It sounds like I am not the only one who would have a hard time with this choice (foxes pad, our houses are quite similar and I knew you would express similar feelings! what is it with those DHs and their stained wood?) Kswl, I do have a call out to a good designer (if it's good advice, keep screaming it at me, I don't mind). I really hope she can take me on as she seems like someone I can work with. It is difficult to find someone who shares your aesthetic and has time. Especially here in the sticks where it seems most want everything to match and be made of leather or polyester. If I could afford to fly Lauren Liess in even for one day, I would. I'm just trying to get a vision clear in my head, so that no matter what the designer says, I can either comfortably accept or reject as I am the one who will have to live with it. 10 years ago when we redid our kitchen the KD had me ready to sign to order dark stained cabs for the kitchen when I had a sudden realization that I hated dark stained cabs and wanted light painted. Here is one pic from the where to put the piano thread. How lucky I took those pics right before the fire. Another garden web bonus is that I did a "finished bathroom" post after our reno listing all the paint colours, fixture names, etc. I would never remember them otherwise and it will make it easy to redo. Thanks again everyone. Really appreciate the input.