BS: Why are we still building with wood

Subject: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: mg
Date: 05 May 07 - 08:09 PM

It drives me crazy seeing the latest tornado..plus the wildfires, plus the floods, hurricanes, bugs, drug houses that can't be cleaned; mold...I think we are absolutely insane to allow at least new construction, and certainly construction after a disaster, to be built with little sticks, growing smaller every year because years ago their granddaddies were cut up for paper. Why, why why? Now they are digging out in Kansas..looking for bodies...I can tell people of Kansas, and Oklahoma that they are going to have tornadoes. I can tell people in California they are going to have canyon fires. I can tell myself and I live in a house made out of cardboard essentially, that I will have a tsunami sooner or later.

What is with us? Other countries build with stone and cement..I know there are arguments for earthquakes, particularly in PNW, but you can built with other materials any way.

To say nothing of using precious trees for houses..use them liberally for floors and walls and furniture and not the awful synthetic stuff, but ...I hope Obama makes a law...no construction, certainly no construction of public facilities or housing, of destructible materials..that rot, for heavens sake. We don't have enough energy to keep on top of maintenance for another thing and we are losing the skills we had.

We could go now and live in one of the ruins that the Romans left us, or any number of other places world wide, but we continue to build out of the most ridiculous stuff there is. Yes, it is pretty, but basically so what? Lots of pretty stone cottages out there.

I can absolutely not fathom why we continue to do this, why the insurance companies don't refuse to insure (which they are starting to)..why France for example won't allow construction that will burn..and they are of course building New Orleans again out of wood. It seems when they have tornados they rebuild out of wood...

And you can save energy in the long-term if you do it right...

It is one of the top crazy things we do..probably exceeded by how we treat garbage...

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Midchuck
Date: 05 May 07 - 08:12 PM

I'm sitting in a 200 (more or less) year old wood house, asking, "why not?"

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Alice
Date: 05 May 07 - 08:13 PM

I like rammed earth, myself. I used to own land in north west Montana that had the perfect clay soil for rammed earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 07 - 08:20 PM

We do it because we can, mg. And because we're used to it. That's the way human beings are. Anything they can do, they will do. Using wood would not have to be a problem, though, providing there were the right reforestation programs in place, and no clear-cutting of existing forests allowed.

You might also ask why we are still burning fossil fuels when there are far wiser ways to produce energy...

or why we are still fighting wars when there are far wiser ways to spend time, energy, and human creativity...

or why we are still eating vast amounts of meat when it's not necessary or even healthful to do so...

or why we still have widespread poverty in the world...?

A lot of questions to ponder.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Alice
Date: 05 May 07 - 08:22 PM

I wish I had a rammed earth house on my lot instead of the wood frame one I am sitting in.
http://www.rammedearthworks.com/home.html

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 May 07 - 08:52 PM

False premise #1: The Kansas tornado destroyed things that were wood.

Truth: That particular Kansas tornado destroyed everything regardless of the kind or quality of construction.

Quibble allowed: The only thing left in the town was the grain silo, which may or may not have been mostly filled - i.e. it's possible that at least part of it may have resembled rammed soil. It's a weak argument though, at this time of the year.

False premise #2: Trees have all been cut down for paper.

Truth: For quite a long time, at least in the US, the only trees "cut for paper" are new growth trees harvested as a crop that are a renewable resource, with a minor contribution from old, and usually degenerate "pulp wood" trees that people want removed for other reasons.

Questionable assumption: That other kinds of construction are "miraculously better" than common wood frame.

Properly constructed, wood is about as good as one can get for smaller structures like homes, especially when they must be built in large numbers to house a stupidly expanding population. Special-built structures to withstand one emergency commonly are subject to disasters of other kinds. There is an advantage in using well-known materials and construction to achieve a consistency in construction quality at affordable prices. There is a necessity for the establishing and enforcement of building codes to regulate the materials, methods, and locations used when population density is sufficient that any one structure could pose a hazard to adjacent ones.

Okay. Now continue with your reasoned exposition of the alternatives.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,sam
Date: 05 May 07 - 09:02 PM

Some possible reasons:

In some areas of the world wood is likely surperior to brick.
For example, areas where there is rain followed by freezing conditions. These conditions are not good for mortered brick joints.

Wood may be better in wet, less stable land?

Some areas of the world have plenty of wood.

There are likely more people who can build wooden houses than those who can lay bricks.


The outside of many urban houses are not being built with wood, but with glues wood chips. Not sure if it is better than before, but likely not. Older houses were more sturdy, because they used large wooden pieces, not engineered artificial stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Alice
Date: 05 May 07 - 09:03 PM

I like the insulation properties of rammed earth, heating, cooling, sound insulation. I like the 'adobe' look.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 07 - 09:04 PM

The new construction material is a nightmare for firefighters. I wish truss construction could be banned.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 May 07 - 09:24 PM

Personally, I like the idea of earth-covered and earth-sheltered housing. Properly constructed, of course.

But here's another point to ponder: why are we constructing all these new houses while the upper stories of old buildings sit empty? Why not refurbish what we have and use that?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Alice
Date: 05 May 07 - 09:27 PM

Rapaire, I think an earth bermed house in HOBBIT style would be fun! Round doors, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 May 07 - 09:35 PM

And ya know, all of this was discussed back in the '70s. We've got better technology now -- why not use it to enhance what was discussed then?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: bobad
Date: 05 May 07 - 09:53 PM

One of the three little pigs had it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 07 - 10:00 PM

Wood is a newable resource...it is cut planted, cut planted, generation after generation.

Stone homes are frequently ill-insolated...thick, awkward, cold, and the rocks are not placed back in the quarry after they crumble.

Sincerely,

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 May 07 - 10:01 PM

Here in California, nothing survives an earthquake as well as a frame house. Wooden frame houses have a fair amount of flexibility, so they aren't as likely to be shaken apart by an earthquake.
And if you want to do wiring or plumbing or remodeling, frame houses are a lot easier to work with.
-Joe, who maintains a 100-yr-old cast concrete firehouse-

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Bert
Date: 05 May 07 - 10:04 PM

Here's an old wooden building

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 May 07 - 10:28 PM

There actually are several "bunkered" homes in my area and on southward, with a notable one quite visible on the main highway in Shattuck, OK, mostly built in the late 1940s or early 1950s.

About two thirds of them are abandoned due to the mildew and settling, but the ones that have been maintained are still worth "braggin' rights" for the occupants.

One of the more promising newer construction techniques uses what I think one builder calls Redi-Forms. The forms are made of plastic foam, rebars are installed and concrete poured, making a reinforced concrete shell; and the forms remain in place as interior and exterior insulation.

The descriptions I've seen of the method don't mention how the enclosed concrete gets properly cured and dried to normal stable condition inside those forms; and wet (even fully cured) concrete doesn't stand temperature cycles like we have here; but the few owners who've bragged about it either don't know or haven't been in them long enough to see the crumbling start.

I've also seen no "balance sheet" on the petroleum consumption required to make the foam (and the concrete) to say whether it's actually an ecologically low-impact method.

We have a few "straw bale" structures in the general region; and the owners brag a lot on them; but they don't really seem to be selling briskly. Some, but not all, claim some mysterious "impregnant" that stabilizes the bales, but formulations are not generally known.

At least one "house" in the region was built out of old (beer?) bottles. I've known a couple of people for whom this construction probably would be economically feasible; but I don't think anyone's lived in the one that's best known for several decades. (The builder's sanity was subject to question due to some of his other "constructions.")

John

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 May 07 - 10:33 PM

And why do we fill our landfills with wood and other construction debris when it could be recycled? Broken wood could be made into chipboard or plywood, for example, and the city here reused asphalt milled from city streets to pave alleys (which keeps the dust down and helps lower stormwater runoff into the river).

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 May 07 - 10:45 PM

The big problem (aside from laziness and lack of economic incentive?) with recycling wood construction probably is the contamination with other construction materials. Asphalt paper, composition shingles and siding, plasterboard, wallpaper, paints, glues, etc. Separating the wood out to chip it is - or at least looks - rather expensive.

For community paving in my area at least, some asphalt is recycled. In some cases it can be done in place, with the old ripped up, rendered, and fed back through a heater to cast it back onto the original surface, with only supplemental additions of new material. It does take a fairly large project to justify the more specialized machinery ... and someone who knows how to do it and meet specifications.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 05 May 07 - 11:23 PM

MG kudos.. you have take BS to new heights!
Why do we still build with box shapes? Domed shaped houses are less likley to incur wind damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 May 07 - 11:47 PM

Alice, This Flying Concrete Fellow would be the perfect person to design and build a hobbit-type house. I LOVE the houses he has built AND his goal is always to do them as inexpensively as possible using environmentally sound local materials. last time I checked he only charge. If we ever wind up building ourselves a new house we will look into "flying concrete."

Everytime my grandson sees a big truck go by with huge logs of Ponderosa Pines he asks me "why they cut down our trees." When I tell him they will make lumber from them to build houses, he tells me, "Well, that's not fair!"

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: mg
Date: 05 May 07 - 11:54 PM

and why is this more BS than the poverty thread for example? Poor people are very affected by their housing, or lack of it. It decays, it sometimes can't be cared for properly, and it burns children to death when the housing catches on fire. Housing is absolutely essential to almost everything you can think of..the national economy takes hits every time we have to recover from a disaster...what if Katrina had flooded cement houses with some sort of impermeable finish, like ceramic perhaps...you lose the inner walls and all the furnishings, but the houses remain. It bothers me, call me sentimental, when people die who didn't have to, in very painful ways, such as being burned to death or blown away in a tornado. I don't like it when whole towns are demolished. I don't think it has to be this way...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Mickey191
Date: 06 May 07 - 12:02 AM

Great Subject. Is this any kind of viable solution?

www.geocities.com/flyingconcrete/tims.htm
   
Was going to retire here a few years ago-change of plans though.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Gurney
Date: 06 May 07 - 01:10 AM

As Joe Offer says, nothing is better in an earthquake than a frame house. A few tiles may slide off, it may fall off it's footings, it may even float down a river, but the people inside will be alive. They are more likely to be killed by their own furniture than bits of building. I live in a country which suffers earthquakes. Our building codes are formulated for frames, and it tends to cost more if you build otherwise.

It is possible, of course, to build a frame house with steel frames as they do in Australia, but they do it there to stop termites eating the wood framing, I believe. It isn't girders, just pressed steel and sheetmetal screws.

Here the tarmacadam milled off the roads is used as base-course for house drives. If you can get it.

I suspect that there are no definitive answers to the question, and that every comment on this thread is correct. For a local value of correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 May 07 - 01:44 AM

Gurney -

Steel framing is becoming fairly common in home construction in some parts of the US. It's probably still marginally more expensive in material cost than wood stud construction, but some builders say there's less labor, since nearly all the parts are "kitted" to minimize on-site fitting.

(This is the style where formed sheetmetal parts simulate being the studs and joists etc that would be wood in more usual construction - not the all-steel building types used a lot previously.)

Special (at least a little different) fasterners are needed, and some "learning curve" seems to be involved for the hammer crews. There's some debate about how adaptable it is to "remodeling" where one might want to move a few walls around.

Many, but not all, local building codes permit it, and some even seem to be "friendly" to it.

It's still used a lot more in commercial buildings, especially for interior walls etc., than in homes; but could eventually catch on.

It does seem more common in the "rubber stamp" large developments, where one or two builders try to make everything go up in a hurry, with many nearly identical plans and layouts. Cookie cutter style.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: mg
Date: 06 May 07 - 01:47 AM

i AM NOT SURE about the earthquake situation..I think with reinforced concrete you have a good structure...but you have the secondary problem of fire after a big earthquake..and some places face higher risks than earthquakes, such as in tornado land...and for sure I think that trailer parks need additional shelters that people can crowd into..maybe that is a law..I don't know...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:16 AM

Ah...the search for the totally "safe" house goes on. ;-) Okay, here's an idea. Build completely spherical houses made of stainless steel, with an inner lining of some kind of good insulator, and soft inner walls that you can bounce off without hurting yourself. Your stainless steel house will not catch fire nor will it rust. Its bright, shiny surface will reflect the sunlight, helping to reduce summer heat. If there is a flood or a giant tidal wave, you just close all the watertight doors and windows, and your lovely stainless steel spherical house will float safely on the floodwaters until they recede! If a big wind comes along that would knock down any conventional house or tear it apart, your stainless steel house will simply roll merrily along, bouncing off any obstacles it encounters...until the wind abates! If attacked by large animals, the stainless steel surface will repell them with no difficulty. It will need little cleaning, no painting, no roof, and no foundation. It will be your totally safe little self-contained world. Ensconced inside its padded walls, you will be hermetically sealed from the dangers of the outside world and 100% self-sufficient. Equipped with a number of standard plug-in outlets for electricity, water, gas, and other such utilities, the stainless steel house can easily be disconnected from the grid and rolled by hand to any convenient lot and plugged in. Bingo! You're on the grid. Don't like the neighbours? Just roll your house off to a new location.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: mg
Date: 06 May 07 - 03:10 AM

I think it's called an Airstream...but I think there are health problems associated with too much steel in buildings...I can't say for sure..ask Faraday. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: dianavan
Date: 06 May 07 - 03:25 AM

It depends entirely on the climate. If you need to build to withstand hurricanes, you build cement walls around wood and cement houses. If you live in the desert, you build with adobe. Wood works well for the Pacific Northwest, stucco doesn't.

Structural engineers are constantly working on this problem. The emphasis is now on sustainable buildings using environmentally sound materials and systems.

This is another 'poverty' issue. Trailers and mobile homes are not the safest type of housing but it is affordable. Stucco in the Pacific Northwest is a disaster but its cheap and looks good for a couple of years. Stone is absolutely gorgeous but it is labour intensive and costs a fortune.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: skarpi
Date: 06 May 07 - 05:37 AM

Why can our houses stand winds up 50-80 mtr ? here in Iceland

maybe becouse we make the houses stronger that you do ?
why do houses here not go down in earthquakes here like in LA
or elsewhere ?


we build our houses strong , both wood and stone .

like this one http://mbl.is/mm/fasteignir/fasteign/?eign=233994>/a>

or this one http://mbl.is/mm/fasteignir/fasteign/?eign=238536

or this one witch is timber house and its my house , I lived
here through strong earthquakes 6,5 and 6,7 and wind up 60 mtr pr
sec.


start building a better houses .........   




good luck
All thebest Skarpi Iceland.
P.s I coult not get the blue on links ?

fixed the links, but didn't see a third on for your house - el joe clone

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Willie-O
Date: 06 May 07 - 06:59 AM

I'm a fan of wood-frame construction. It is a very efficient use of materials, when you compare the actual quantity of wood that goes into such a structure with other methods--like the romance of log construction, say.

Stone and concrete are just the ticket for foundations, backwalls, that kind of thing--but as your house goes higher in the air you want something lighter to work with!

Like any other renewable resource, wood supply CAN be sustainably managed--the development of standards, notably FSC certification (Forest Stewardship Council), similar to organic certification, is a good indicator of this.

As for issues of mold and decay, there are many ways of addressing them. The water isn't supposed to get inside the house in an uncontained manner. I like substantial roof overhangs, they are also practical for "transitional space"--porches, storage etc.
The worst problem material with flooded dwellings isn't wood, its drywall and perhaps insulation. You have to rip all that stuff out, but then the wood can dry out and be fine if it wasn't soaked for too long.

More later. Good thread actually, one of my favourite topics...
W-O

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: kendall
Date: 06 May 07 - 07:04 AM

I'm not looking to argue, just to answer the question.

We build with wood here in Maine because, we have many more carpenters than stone masons or brick layers. Also, Maine has more forest than any other of the lower 48 states. We ae up to our necks in wood. Termites can't survive in this climate, we don't have tornadoes,canyon fires or earthquakes. Never had a Tsunami or a history of hurricanes. Nothing is perfect, we do have blizzards and republicans,but I like it here.

As an aside, this business of replanting trees that the timber companies brag about, they don't tell you how many of them die soon after planting.

What bothers me most is the clear cutting in the rain forest. They are destroying the "lungs" of this earth, and we will pay in time.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,Alice
Date: 06 May 07 - 07:35 AM

We had a direct hit, Hurricane Juan, a few years ago in Halifax Nova Scotia.

There was much damage, trees, power poles and buildings were impacted. But,our mostly wooden houses stood up to the strong winds.

We get rain and freezing conditions in the winter. Not good for brick. Like Maine, we have an good supply of lumber and carpenters, and wood costs less than bricks. (There are also energy and other costs to make bricks)

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,Alice
Date: 06 May 07 - 07:40 AM

I often see on TV is people burning off forests to clear land for agriculture production (i.e. Amazon).

A well managed forest plan includes replanting harvested trees. (Think of all the Christmas trees that are used But, the areas are replanted).

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Deckman
Date: 06 May 07 - 08:01 AM

As a carpenter, I much prefer building with wood. It's very user friendly, has gorgeous qualities ... and it's much easier to steal. I know this because most every night, I spend several minutes with tweezers removing the small pieces of wood I've stolen that day, from my fingers and hands.

Sure, I do sometimes build with "tin can studs" ... but I just hate the color combination of grease and blood.

Probably most enviromently sensible "new" construction technique I'm noticed is hay bale construction. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,Alice
Date: 06 May 07 - 08:16 AM

As for the three little pigs:
They used sticks, not lumber.
And, I suspect small sticks they found nearby (after all, they were pigs). They likely used uncertifiable techniques and fastners
I doubt if they paid attentio to local codes.
.
They knew they were building in a wolf zone, so they should have built better.

I doubt if anyone today recommends stick construction.
But, maybe then.....

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 May 07 - 08:20 AM

Problems arise because peopel build the wrong sort of houses in the wrong places,using the wrong off-the-shelf materials and techniques. Wood is a wonderful material for many situations, just not all. If you build any kind of house, specially a wooden one, in an area where forest fires are a normal part of the natural cycle, you're just asking for trouble.

"using precious trees for houses" is only a problem is A) we use virgin forest trees, and don't allow forests to regenerate , and B) if we see houses as short term throwaway items. Houses, whether made of wood or any other material including wood, are meant to last for centuries, and if properly constructed, they do.

The thing about wood is that, if properly looked after, it can be used and reused in all kinds of ways. And of course it is completely bio-degradeable.

The material that ought to be abolished is plastic in virtually all its forms.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Willie-O
Date: 06 May 07 - 08:38 AM

McGrath is spot on. Except a wood-framed house, clad in non-burnable material, is no worse than anything else in a forest-fire-prone area. Adequate firebreaks are necessary of course. Cedar shake/shingle siding and roofing in such areas is totally insane, as has been recognized in the past decade or two. Finishing a house in kindling is a poor plan anywhere, although rustically attractive and decently weatherproof.

As for brick in northern climes, it actually is very common and works well--but mostly as an exterior facade, not as structure. Many of us grew up in "brick houses", which are actually woodframe houses with brick exterior. Older structurally-brick houses tend to have two or three brick walls--pretty damn labour-and-material-intensive which is why they are hardly done theses days (hereabouts anyway).

Brick, stone, concrete: all of these are based on non-renewable resources. They are fine for many uses, but it would be a grave error to declare them the only acceptable materials.

There is no "concept" of building that is automatically the best. Straw bale houses are currently quite trendy around here--in Canada we like lots of natural insulation--but they take a long time (usually owner-built) and I'm waiting to see how the plaster/concrete/stucco finishes hold out--I see a lot of cracks in the exterior of quite new houses, it's considered "normal".

Wood framing is fairly easy to learn, and can be undertaken by any size crew, with a wide range of equipment--you can build a whole house by yourself with nothing more than a circular saw, hammer, square and tape measure, or you can go the opposite. Flexibility like that is a good thing. The ease of renovating and expanding later is also important, given that most houses undergo that process at least once.

W-O

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 May 07 - 09:54 AM

The only burnable exterior thing on our house (that I can think of righ off) is the cedar shake roof. And THAT is going to be replaced as soon as we can afford to do so. Too much danger of wildfire!

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 07 - 09:56 AM

The original question is a good one, and should be extended to cover a lot of practices which are still in place because of the evolution of habit, economic "sweet sport", and a certain resistance to change. There are probably many industries that would be more effective if new solutions were used -- recycled plastics, synthetic wood products, carbon-fiber reinforced thingummies. Partly the reason things of this kind do not change rapidly is because of the combination of "doing what was always done", the cost of entry into new ways, an aversion to risk in incrporating unproven methods, and a sort of craven hunger for agreement. It is surprising, in retrospect, to realize how much change has occurred in some areas -- the migration from carbon paper and typewriters and erasers to dual-monitor woprkstations, laser printers and PDF files, for example, or the advent of electronic mail, or cell phones. Other areas, such as building and road construction, move forward much more slowly.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,ABC
Date: 06 May 07 - 10:18 AM

Bigger Question: Why do people continue to rebuild where tornadoes have wiped them out? Where large fires can be counted on to reoccur as part of nature's cycle? Where hurricanes are nothing new? I think the regulation of building materials is a good idea but if someone wants to build with wood in a danger zone, why not charge them more for insurance? I also think that our government, who bails these people out time after time should do it only once. There is no incentive to move or to build more sturdy structures when one can count on the government to bail them out. First time, ok. Second time, it's up to you pal. ABC

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 May 07 - 11:27 AM

Mickey, I fixed my link so that folks know it is about the flying concrete, too.

I think it is a wonderful way to go: it is CHEAP, i.e. he built one woman a house for about $4000 US; you build with it as you would with wood, i.e. you can pound nails in it, etc.; and, it LOOKS great!Take a look, folks, read the info. Here's the link, again:

FLYING CONCRETE.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: AWG
Date: 06 May 07 - 11:31 AM

Anyone familiar with straw bale houses ? They are becoming more and more popular here in Ontario. Very economical.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Mickey191
Date: 06 May 07 - 12:22 PM

Thanks Kat, I've saved that site in my favs. folder for about 4 yrs. I was impressed that the small house was, as you said, $4,000. It's probably a bit higher now. The beauty part is that if one doesn't go for the wild colors and shapes there are many alternatives. Was going to try it out for a year or two-but my buddy chickened out.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 06 May 07 - 12:23 PM

Hm, mg - why not do just the teeniest bit of research before posting? It might stop you looking like an ass.
Concrete production accounts for around 10 per cent of CO2 emissions. When it's done with, you have to grind it up and use it for hardcore or landfill.
Wood locks in CO2, and the longer the house stands, the longer the CO2 stays locked in. When you've finished with it it can be pulped or shredded to make building sheets, turned into paper or burned.
Concrete is inflexible and ugly; wood is flexible and inherently attractive.
And, in an earthquake or storm, I know which building I'd rather be in. Look at Kobe after the quake in the early 90s - the wooden buildings remained standing; the concrete ones collapsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 06 May 07 - 01:32 PM

Hey, CG... mg has got more integrity in her doubts than you have in your assurances. Calling a well meaning person an ass is the surest way to become one...

Carbon Dioxide is not the 'big problem' we face in today's environment.

Concrete is beginning to be efectively recycled. Grinding it down is becoming quite cost effective.

Wood rots. An outside deck becomes dangerous in twenty to thirty years here in the NW...

Concrete is only as inflexible and ugly as the forms that made it... which are usually made of wood. Experimentation with new form materials will give amazing results...

Improperly reinforced concrete structures... especially underengineered ones... are indeed more dangerous than your average wood frame sheetrock holder...

But done right, concrete is incredibly strong, durable, inexpensive, and environmentally friendly.

Wood chip technology is ultimately extremely toxic, and wood finishing products are world renowned for their relatively short lifespan and toxicity.

The 'new growth' wood that is being used for exterior trim on the majority of structures being built today is difficult to match at the seams, takes paint in an eratic fashion, and warps incessantly. It just looks shabby.

There is hardly any good wood left in the world, and it should be considered a treasure... lets leave some of it so that our children's children can have nice wood for their musical instruments, floors, and 'bright work.'
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: dianavan
Date: 06 May 07 - 01:56 PM

Cob houses are the latest trend in B.C., especially on the islands. I'm not sure how they hold up but they look good and really lend themselves to creative ideas. On my home island, there is a crew of women who call themselves the Cob Girls. They work together to build structures for each other. I've seen several small outbuildings (cookie stands, outhouses, workshops) built from cob. The best thing is that it seems easy to build with.

Stucco, on the other hand is a nightmare in wet climates. Of course it would help if they installed the flashings correctly. Shoddy construction is often the result of a building boom and unqualified contractors and/or workers. One of the best ways to insure quality is to hire Union workers. You get what you pay for.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:05 PM

"One of the best ways to insure quality is to hire Union workers. You get what you pay for."

Hear, hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: kendall
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:10 PM

I've often said that people who build in a flood zone coud take a look at the common woodchuck. He knows better than to dig his home in a flood zone.

MG is hardly an ass, and that sort of sarcastic insult is not real welcome here.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:23 PM

"doing what was always done" has a lot to be said for it, so long as if it means using the techniques and materials and that have been used successfully in that particular part of the world for this particular type of purpose. More likely than not the better formula would be more a matter of "doing it the way it always used to be done", which isn't quite the same thing.

They just had to spend an enormous amount rebuilding a local church in Harlow because the architect had made use of a kind of modern concrete that turned out to disintegrate after a few years. (He used it in our Town Hall too, and that had to be demolished, but the church was a bit more special.)