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.)

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: dianavan
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:41 PM

You're right about that, kendall, and anyone who builds in a bog has no right to complain about mildew. Same goes for those who think they can have the forest for a backyard and not be effected by forest fires.

RE: asphalt roads

Everytime they have to dig up the road to repair water lines, etc., the road has to be repaired. My daughter mentioned that in Denmark, the roads are built with paving stones. When repairs are done they simply remove the stones, set them aside and replace them when finished.

I think the biggest problem in N.A. is our 'disposable' mindset coupled with the concept of short term gain. Nobody wants to consider the long term or invest the money to insure sustainability. They would rather put out fires as the need arises. I see this in every aspect of our social structure. In the long term its a waste of human resources as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: mg
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:43 PM

I think doing what was always done probably works in places where people have been for a while..but in US they came from all over and built some mighty inappropriate things for their new areas...You have to be careful with concrete acting as damns in flood situations...although good wood constrution would too..my concern is safety right now and not totally ecological..I am from a timber town and want to see timber prosper and be used..

And as for stone being expensive..there are ways to use it in forms and add cement or concerete..forget which..to make a strong and stury house..great in areas of lots of rocks that are suitable.

And an Iranian engineer came up with a way of baking mud huts inthe traditional Iranian style..baked with a stove from the inside..that made them quite indestructible...if I were on trhe prairies I would want at least a partially dug in house with a dome roof...

look at the pretty stone houses in Pennsyylvania and Quebec...

And as mentioned in other threads, we have lots of people with financial problems, unemployment, etc. Why aren't some of them being trained in masonry, as well as instilaltion of solar panels, etc.... mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:56 PM

Why was my post removed from this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:57 PM

T%his is just the start of what will be one very long, trying day for some bloody clone out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:57 PM

Fuckin' count on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 07 - 03:07 PM

The post said in essence (I should know to copy intended posts because so nmany of the fuckin' things just seem to disappear for some unknown reason)--




'"Hm, mg - why not do just the teeniest bit of research before posting? It might stop you looking like an ass."

MG has started many threads that have led to good back and forth, and it usually stays that way until some cad like you comes along. You owe the lady an apology. Period.'


So, how long until THIS post disappears?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 May 07 - 03:34 PM

From the flying concrete site. (Also see the US Dept. of Interior's Concrete Manual):

Concrete is strong in compression and the best way to take advantage of this property is by building structures that are inherently self supporting and don't need a lot of iron reinforcing. Since most building here in Mexico is with concrete, it is easier to let your imagination go wild. Local builders have been working with ferro-cement, styrofoam panels, plastered straw bale, and soil-crete. I have had the most success with light weight concrete. Light weight concrete differs from heavy concrete by it's use of naturally light weight materials (aggregates) such as pumice (volcanic stone) in place of the sand and gravel used in ordinary structural concrete mixes. It only weighs half as much.

Not all concrete is ugly, hard, cold and difficult to work with. There exists a whole range of light weight concretes "which have a density and compressive strength very similar to wood.They are easy to work with, can be nailed with ordinary nails, cut with a saw, drilled with woodworking tools, easily repaired . We believe that ultra-light weight concrete is one of the most fundamental bulk building materials of the future." A Pattern Language

Light weight concrete is about one half the weight of hard structural concrete. It can be mixed from a variety of light weight aggregates including vermiculite, perlite, scoria, and pumice. Some form of suitable aggregate is available most everywhere in the world. Our locally available aggregate here in San Miguel is a type of pumice (espumilla or arenilla) which we typically mix 8:1 or 10:1 (by volume) with cement for walls, and 5:1 for roofs. Most lightweight concrete has a good R-value and is a good insulator of heat and sound. It is used as soundproofing in subway stations. It has tremendous sculptural possibilities and is ideal for monolithic, wall-roof construction.

I feel that we need more intelligent building systems. I'm looking for a home that lasts 200 years, that you can maintain and remodel easily, and that uses mostly locally available, abundant materials. Light weight concrete fits the bill here in Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 07 - 04:11 PM

I'd think that that may be the same type of concrete that was/is (?) used to build boats. It's put on over a layer of something that looks like chicken fencing.

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

"Ferro-cement on the Homestead
by Ken Davison

While we have very little money to do what we want to get done on our homestead, we do not feel that we are "poor". How can anyone be "poor" when they own their own land and grow their own food and all their vehicles are paid off? While we don't think of ourselves as poor, we still have very little cash and many projects. We have found that you can do projects with little money and lots of labor, or you can do them with little labor and lots of money. We usually have more time than we do money, so we are constantly looking for ways to complete projects and save.

My experience with ferro-cement started as a young man, by reading about how to build ferro-cement boats. The idea of using chicken wire and cement construction is not at all new. The old timers called houses with this type of construction "Chicken wire & cement houses", which pretty well described them. The main difference between the old "Chicken wire" walls and the "ferro-cement" is the amount of chicken wire used. In the old type of construction, only one layer of chicken wire was used and this was just to hold the cement to the side of the wall. With ferro-cement, 2 to 5 layers of 1 inch mesh chicken wire are used, depending on where they are being used and what strength is required. Cement is the strongest when it is less than one-forth of an inch away from steel reinforcing. In ferro-cement, the overlapped chicken wire is the reinforcing, and all of this wire is what gives it its great strength and ability to withstand stress. By having several layers of chicken wire, with the cement being forced to fill in all the spaces, a very strong cement structure is the result.

If this is sounding pretty simple, it's because it is simple, but it works. There are many ferro-cement boats, still in service that are over 50 years old. Think of the stresses these boats have to endure while on the high seas. Hopefully your house or barn will never be subjected to this kind of stress. If it ever is, I don't want to be in your neighborhood! If the use of chicken wire and cement for outside walls has been around for such a long time, how well does it hold up? Even with one layer of wire, the walls work well. Many walls never had any sort of "sealer" applied and many were never even painted, and yet most lasted for as long as the house was used. Many did develop cracks and had to be repaired from time to time, however. This was not due to flaws in the cement work, but from the house settling as it aged."

from the www

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

Speaking of chicken wire. My brother, who works in construction, tells me that the building boom around Phoenix is producing some incredible shoddy construction. He says that unlike most places, the stucco is applied over chicken wire and little else.

He was saying its a thieves paradise. He says all you would need is a sledge hammer and a wire cutter to enter most of the newly built homes.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 07 - 06:43 PM

That's how we get in if we have to. That or a chainsaw. B and E is NO problem if ya have the tools. That is why I have always wondered why people don't just make houses out of styrofoam.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: mg
Date: 06 May 07 - 06:43 PM

how do they get permits to do stuff like that? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Azizi
Date: 06 May 07 - 06:59 PM

"One of the three little pigs had it right."

I never realized how much of an influence fairy tales were. I never really doubted the morale of the three little pigs story-that brick is the safest type of house there is.

I've always lived in brick houses. And when I went looking for a house to buy, I never considered buying anything but brick. I think that the big bad wolf for me was fire.

In case of fire, aren't brick houses the safest structure to live in?

Of course, I've gathered from seeing how new "brick" houses are built nowadays that most of them aren't really brick. So I betcha that people who have been taught to prefer brick {by the three little pigs story {and by the mass media?} are being fooled into thinking that that fake brick covering over a wood frame is real brick.

Who are the real big bad wolfs?

{rhetorical question}

But I find it interesting to read that a wooden house is better in tornado areas than a brick house.

Hmmm.

Well, I don't know. I still like my brick house even though it's coooold inside in the winter-and it's cold right now inside when it's warmer outside.

Disregarding the shoddy construction, or fake, newfangled building materials subject, maybe the brick vs wood is just a climate thing and/or a different strokes for different folks aesthetic thing.

??

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

Correction from my previous post:

morale=moral.

It occurs to me that maybe the real moral of the three little pigs story is not that "brick houses are better than any other type" but that "you should take the time to build something {or to do something} well."

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

Are you sure it wasn't earthquake areas?

And we have to take social situations into account too...I don't know if there is a material that would stand up to being a meth lab...I would hope perhaps a ceramic over masonry of some type..but there is osmething to be said for thick walls under various sorts of wars etc....I saw all these beautiful old stone??? houses in Italy...and the roof would have a big hole in it..I thought..gee...I have never seen roofs decay with such a round hole in them before..but I guess it must have been bombs..

There was a house in a magazine..on a Maine Island...the sea would every so often run right through it and it turned out just fine.

I think that without hurting the timber people, because like I said, wood could and should be used for window frames, floors, walls, furniture...that money could be brought into poor areas..which I keep saying..have lots of rocks and sand usually...it is a win/win situation. I hope the granite areas of Vermont and Maine are regrouping now that everyone wants granite countertops.

And we certainly can recycle stone houses...just put them in roadbeds, chopped up or not.

The Germans I believe are doing a lot with styrofoam concrete....light and sturdy.

But they say we will never even figure out how the Romans made there's..it still has not been equalled. Sorry..my brain will not retain the distinction between Cement and Concrete...

And if you are a landlord...you want something you can really get down to the basics in..perhaps tearing down walls...after some tenants have done their damage...

We should or probably do, have forms that we can just pump cement into, perhaps with filler rock rubble, pebbles, whatever...and poof, there is your house. And check out ceramics...

I know we don't want to be transporting rocks from Afghanistan..although they are bringing granite in from Brazil...but it is embedded with jewels..especially emeralds..think how pretty that would be.

Oh speaking of stucco..remember years ago..like in the 70s..in Canada they made stucco with broken glass in it..as an artsy thing..broken beer bottles it looked like from the color. Don't seem them anymore...

And think of the stone houses in Ireland..still almost standing...Scotland..Denmark..France...

Now, one last thought that has stuck with me for 20 years..an old Readers Digest article..said one of the major problems in third world countries in terms of their education systems was that they were good at producing scholars, but what they really really needed was cement finishers..that so many things did not get done for lack of skilled labor, which is as cheap to instruct, often, not always, as other forms of education....

Well, so much for my stream of consciousness on masonry.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Gurney
Date: 06 May 07 - 08:06 PM

Just thought I'd chip in again with a couple of construction methods not greatly explored on this thread so far.

Concrete block. These are hollow and available in many forms. The usual method here is to have 'bond beams' which are horizontal blocks at about 3-4 layer intervals, and are filled with reinforced concrete, making belts around the building, and vertical pillars filled too. These buildings are very safe, as it takes a vehicle crash to damage them seriously, and are fairly easy to repair.
In uninsulated form they are ridiculously cold, and so end up with very thick walls for the size of the building, because of the insulation. They need good footings because, if they crack, they are cracked forever. Concrete isn't flexible.

Lockwood. That's what they call it here, after the firm that pioneered it. It is machined timber like tongue-and-groove, but 75mm/3" thick, with two tongues. You stack them up, then run giant bolts (hurricane rods) the full height of the structure, through pre-cut holes. The wiring goes through holes too, and around the skirting. They need to be properly thought out, because once they are built, changes are more difficult to arrange. When built with knotty pine, it is like being inside a goldfish bowl.(all those 'eyes'!) They are quite noisy, because the 'logs' shaded by the soffit/eaves don't get so hot as the lower ones, which expand, and creak and groan as they do so. And also again at night as the structure cools down. Lately the 'logs' have been sheathed in aluminium, which reduces but does not completely solve the noise problem. I would think it would take an exceptional weather event to destroy one of these houses, provided it was firmly attached to it's footings. Warmish houses, though, but quite expensive, and difficult to repair if you need to.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 May 07 - 08:26 PM

"In case of fire, aren't brick houses the safest structure to live in?"

A 'brick house' usually has lots of wood for roofs, linings, etc.... :-) and so they still burn pretty well...

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 May 07 - 08:50 PM

I live in an active seismic area (the Yellowstone Caldera) in a house made from brick, reinforced poured concrete, and wood (and some other stuff, like metal nails and construction adhesive). It has stood up to the 1988 Borah quake and the quake that knocked down the Teton Dam.

But it's made the "old way" with boards laid at an angle to lock the studding together, not with plywood or chipboard used that way. It will sway slightly instead of crack -- and that said, it would of course fall if the quake were great enough.

The library where I work has two sections: one was built in 1907 and one in 1994. Were there an earthquake I know which section I'd rather be in!

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 06 May 07 - 10:01 PM

A firefighter once told me that where you are close to a fire response, the inside material in most houses burn not the outside. He said toxic fumes from interior materials is a huge threat to health. Insulation has likely helped reduce fires reaching the external surfaces..

But, rehgardless of the construction,he said many haouses have to be demolished after fires (from damage from fires and where water is used).

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 May 07 - 10:17 PM

"Why are we still building with wood?"

               I don't know. I bought a 20 foot 2x8 to use as a ridge board today, and it had so much wain in it, and knots from one end to the other, I thought it was going to fall apart before I got it nailed into place.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Deckman
Date: 06 May 07 - 10:22 PM

Get a better lumber yard! Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 07 - 10:42 PM

The materials inside houses are extremely dangerous. Firefighters who care about their health (fortunate enogh to be on departments that care about their health) will not do interior attacks without breathing apparatus. The gases coming off furniture, rugs, paints, plastics are deadly. Rooms superheat leading to a 'phenomenon' called flashover. Literally, everything in the room that is combustible bursts into flame with in a few seconds (two or three) and the resulting fireball produces heat that is extreme. Picture of a flashover chamber for training purposes.

If you will, imagine the whole room being filled with flame like that. Even the bunker gear isn't gonna save you. As the smoke descends from ceiling to floor , even the air itself will ignite. (BTW, the firefighter to the right in the pic should have his shield down.)

Temperatures inside the room will eventually reach about 1100 degrees F at which time--circumstances being right--flashover will occur. I have been in a few houses which we lit numerous times, adding people's donated furniture and observing the behaviour of the fire: its progression, heat and rate of spread. If the thermal layer can be 'broken up', the flashover can be prevented. However, lose access to the water stream and you can be in bad trouble in a very short time. Since a flashover can't be outrun, the one chance a firefighter has is to drop flat to the floor when it is inevitable, arms around the face, count to ten, get up and get out. If you don't make it to ten, y'aint gettin' out.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: mg
Date: 07 May 07 - 01:17 AM

http://www.architectureweek.com/2000/0517/building_1-1.html

Here is this Iranian architect..Nader Kahlili...

I am going to do some more research on ceramics...

there are human considerations as well as earthquake loads etc. of course. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 May 07 - 03:12 AM

When in the planning stages of building you need to exam the enviorment you're building in, the main use & purpose for the building, the design & structure, the size of the building, then the building materials, the the means & construction methods. The budget is probably the 1st thing to consider though, seeing as this will drive the rest of all discissions & set the guide lines for all the rest. There are no 1 material or 1 method ways of building though there are right & wrongs way to build. If you look at the enviorment surrounding where you'd like to build you start to get an idea of what materials would be best to use. Here in New Englad we can harvest stone & timber which works fine in combination of a stone foundation & a wood frame on top, espically when building on a ledge or rock beds. To condemn wood is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Building codes are usually pretty right on as to whats proper construction methods materials espically if you're inquiring about what's been tried & true. When it comes to the more modern they're usually a few blocks behind the engineers & architect which is natural & is a good thing too. If yo've got a good building dept & good inspectors & a new material or a new approch they're great for bouncing ideas off of. "Going Green" is the new trend in building today but if someone wanted to look back over the past centuries the builders aways thought green. One look at the New England "attached farmhouse" shows how the builders of bygone days took the house alinement with the sun & prevailing winds into consideration. The availability of local materials and the availability of the local skill & talent was another "green" consideration. Depending on the structure steel sometimes does not do as well as wood in some fire situations. Steel beams will twist & warp where in a post & beam structure the wood will charr but still hold structually in place & only need sistering or a replacement of only the beam itself. An old wood structure also breathes espically if roofed with slate, clay tiles or wood shakes. A structure that's air tight has it's own set of problems that needs looking after. The tighter the structure the more intense the heat from fire. Which plays a part in weither you'd want to clad a house with a type of wood siding or choose a cheaper vinal or aluminum cladding. How to ventilate & insulate also needs consideration when deciding what to build with. If it's a cheap & fast way you need to go then build with partical or chip or osb instead of a 5/8 or 3/4 plywood. Of course if the 3 get moist, damp of wet they're useless where he plywood will dry out & hold plus the plywood is considered, because of it's multi-directional make up, structual where the other materials aren't. I'd love to build in stone but then it doesn't have any of the insulation properties of wood plus it takes heavy equipment to move, heavy machinery to shape, tool or cut & carve plus I don't know many with the skill & those that have the skill charge a high cost for it. I can do it with brick or wood. Concrete & cement has their own pros & cons but for my money, time & skill I'd build traditional (figures right) with wood. The same as I'd do for a boat.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: mg
Date: 07 May 07 - 04:01 AM

WELL PART OF THE PROBLEM IS no one builds their own houses or has them built....so they take the ugly beige monstrosities..and if you have seen gray washington cities where everyone wears navy blue and drives gray cars...why in the world do they paint their houses beige? should be a law against it..mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: dianavan
Date: 07 May 07 - 04:11 AM

I like wooden houses and wooden boats the best but where are you going to find that sturdy, straight grain, first growth fir these days? I can't even find a nice board to make a shelf in the city. On my home island, all the houses are made of cedar and fir. The finishing inside is usually a combination of red and yellow cedar. Floors are fir, maple or even alder. Stone is used for fireplaces, steps and foundations. Roofs used to be shakes but now corrugated metal or asphalt is used because of fire.

mg - The sand houses by Khalili are absolutely beautiful. Do you think they would work in the rain? They look very suitable for the desert. I love the design. I can also see them nestled amongst the dunes near the ocean. I am amazed because its almost as if he has taken an ancient idea and brought it forward. Gorgeous! I think I would need more light but it would be a great little summer cabin. Thanks for the link.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 May 07 - 09:21 AM

Some of the houses here now have sprinkler systems installed. Wonderful, helps the firefighters and cuts the cost of house insurance!

Of course, the guy who inspected the sprinkler system at the library last week told me that these systems aren't maintained after they are installed -- "Nah, I'm not gonna spend money on THAT!" So if the house burns the insurance will pay nothing, zip, nada, nil.

Not to mention the unnecessary danger to those who live there or have to fight a fire there....

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 May 07 - 11:31 AM

In the US, for the most part what is built, how it is built , and where it is built is pretty much determined by the developers.

They do not decide based on what is best for the community. They do not decide on what is safest. They do not decide based on what is the prettiest. IThey decide based on what they can build the fastest, and sell for the most money.

Before you can change anything else, you have to change that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 07 - 02:18 PM

"Get a better lumber yard! Bob"

                     I'm in Oregon. They must be shipping all the good lumber to Iraq and China.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Naemanson
Date: 07 May 07 - 02:32 PM

People use what they like to use and what they can afford. Stick built is still cheapest.

Having said that there are other considerations. Here in Guam typhoons can spring to life and hit us with only 72 hours notice. Plus we have earthquakes. And we have a particularly voracious Asian termite that loves to eat up wood. Consequently most houses resemble concrete bunkers. It works for us.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,Girlygirl
Date: 07 May 07 - 05:19 PM

Where would you suggest to move? If you really think about it, there is no place on earth that is not subject to the power of mother nature.

Gulf States (and much of the East Coast for all that matters) are subject to devastating hurricanes. The West Coast is subject to fires and earthquakes. Everyone living within a few miles of the coastline is subject to tsunamis. Every state between North Dakota and Texas has suffered some sort of natural disaster at one time or another.


I mean, geez, the city of Seattle is built on a volcano.

If Yellowstone erupted it would take out half the country -- not just Wyoming. A quake along the New Madrid Fault would take out the city of St. Louis (not to mention the devastation it would cause in the rest of Missouri and Illinois.) Many major cities in the United States are subject to earthquakes (check the USGS to find out which ones). Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee -- all subject to tornados as well.


It's not just the Unites States either. Istanbul, Turkey sits on a major fault like. We're all well aware of what Mt. Vesuvius did to Pompeii and Herculaneum in 79. It's erupted several times since.
Yet, two million people live in its vicinity, and the Italian government has offered incentives for folks to move because they're afraid of what would happen if it were to erupt. Still, residents don't want to move.

Why? Because it's their home.

I know someone who lives in Kansas whose house -- made of wood -- has stood for the past 100 years. They've had several tornados pass right over their house, but they've just been lucky not to have major damage.

Whether you become victim to a natural disaster is merely a matter of luck and the will of a higher power. (For those who don't believe in a higher power, come talk to me AFTER you figure out how to make the sun rise.)

Instead of asking why anyone would live there, we all just need to remember that sometimes s**t happens. Everyone needs insurance and a deep love for his fellow man because none of us ever know when that s**t is going to happen to us.

Peace

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,ttj
Date: 07 May 07 - 05:32 PM

Hello all,

   I just kind of stumbled on your website here and I don't know much about the Mudcat Cafe (interesting name, though). I live in Brazil and here houses are made with a lot of concrete and very fragile hollow ceramic bricks that are reinforced with a lot of cement covering. It's a very inefficient way to build a house and it can take up to 2 years depending on your financing conditions. The weather here is mild, though, so people can get away with it.
   Personally, I really like wood because it is so easy to work with and buildings can go up very quickly.
   On the other hand, wood doesn't seem to make sense for people who live in areas with a lot of severe weather. I think if I were living in Kansas or Oklahoma, or other tornado alleys in the midwest U.S., I would think seriously about rebuilding a destroyed home in all wood structure.
    It seems that now would be an interesting time for people in those areas to consider building earth-bermed houses with some reinforced concrete, stone, and maybe some hay bales. There is a huge amount of area there and the land must be reasonably priced, but I'd imagine many people are hesitant to move there because of the occasionally violent weather. Maybe now would be an opportunity for those people to build some more solid and perhaps environmentally friendly structures that could withstand the weather...anyone agree with me? Really, perhaps we need to get the developers to think about this...any aspiring developers out there?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 07 - 05:34 PM

"why in the world do they paint their houses beige?"

WHAT is beige?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 07 - 05:42 PM

Basic rule should be, use local materials, and take full account of traditional techniques.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 May 07 - 06:03 PM

Beige in Colorado is a basic light shite brown!

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Donuel
Date: 07 May 07 - 06:19 PM

because witches are made of wood?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 07 - 06:45 PM

Thank you. If it ain't yer basic rainbow colour with ish, sorta or cross between, it gets me lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 May 07 - 07:59 PM

"come talk to me AFTER you figure out how to make the sun rise"

The sun does not rise, except from your limited perspective - I believe the earth rotates in front of a staionary sun.

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 07 - 08:01 PM

The sun is not ststionary. It too moves.

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

We're trying to figure out a useful way to utilize knots.

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

Ideas R Us

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 May 07 - 08:09 PM

"The sun is not stationary. It too moves."

It moves, so say those who have a wider perspective than was necessary to deal with your trivial question... :-)

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 07 - 08:10 PM

Actually, neither one of them is stationary. The sun too is in motion in the greater context of the rest of the Universe. But, yes, the Earth does rotate around the sun. Be that as it may, none of us is in control of the sunrise. Therefore you might say that we must submit to the sunrise happening in a way that is completely beyond our control...therefore it is happening through the mechanism of a higher power. You can describe that higher power any way you want to...scientifically, philosophically, or religiously. That's up to you.

That higher power does not have to be defined as a sentient "God", if that's what is bothering you, Foolestroupe. ;-)

You cannot make the sun rise. You cannot stop it from rising. It is therefore beyond your power...or any human power. It is therefore in the jurisdiction of what we can term as "a higher power"..."higher" meaning something beyond our reach or control.

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

Ommmmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 May 07 - 08:37 PM

"you might say that we must submit to the sunrise happening in a way that is completely beyond our control"

Yep.... then again you might not - Mankind do not want to willingly submit to the sunrise - that's why we have reed lamps, and electrickery... :-P and why you are not alseep right now - it's daylight here.... :-)

"therefore it is happening through the mechanism of a higher power."

Ah...

"You cannot make the sun rise. You cannot stop it from rising. It is therefore beyond your power...or any human power. It is therefore in the jurisdiction of what we can term as "a higher power"..."higher" meaning something beyond our reach or control."

Our 'world' only exists in our 'minds'¹, so it ceases when our minds cease. Thus I can stop the sun from rising, or cause the world to come to an end by doing all I can to speed the end times whereupon I will be translated to another plane - hopefully Business Class, with free drinks...


'But it moves...'²


"WHAT is beige?"

Billy Connelly's father told him thatthe world is being taken over by beige - "Always fight the beige, Son!"




¹ Well, that's another topic... :-)
² So do my Bowels... :-)


:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 07 - 09:22 PM

You may be correct, Foolestroupe, that our world only exists in our minds. ;-) That is a concept embraced by many of the Eastern philosophies.

In the context OF our world as we know it objectively, however, we cannot control the sunrise. If our world is simply our collective mental illusion, then of course, the entire thing can be "stopped" the moment we stop imagining it!

And that is a goal sought by some on the path to enlightenment, so I've heard. That's why what they find when they get there is said to be indescribable, since it doesn't fall within any of our known points of reference.

Beige is a lovely colour! And a very useful one. We need more and more and more beige, that's what I say. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: mg
Date: 07 May 07 - 09:29 PM

oh please not here..9 months of grey weather, grey cement, grey ocean, grey sky, pale Scandinavian faces (no offense, I am sure some get sun tans), grey cars...at least people don't tend to wear gray clothes here but a lot of navy blue and forest green..red suspenders if a former lumberjack...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 07 - 09:45 PM

Yes, but grey is not beige. Beige has a certain warmth to it, whereas grey is either cold or neutral. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 07 - 10:12 PM

Ahem! Much like ambrosia I suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 07 - 09:23 AM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,Minerva
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:13 AM

A basic point is missing here. Fundamentally, it's not because "that's the way we've always done it," or "the developers all decide what we build with," etc., etc.

In some parts of the world, you will see almost nothing built of concrete. This is because there is no limestone within a reasonable haul distance. Much of northern Europe, with its numerous stone buildings and stone pavements falls in this category. Iceland has one calcium carbonate deposit for the whole island - an offshore shell bank.

In some parts of the world, you will see almost nothing built of wood. This is because there are few if any trees for very long distances.

In some parts of the world, you will rarely, if ever, see a brick structure. This is because there are limited clay deposits with suitable characteristics nearby. Conversely, in some localities, brick is very common, becasue good clays are nearby. The same is true for stone. You can't just say, "Let's all build stone buildings, because it will be friendlier to the forests," because the cost of hauling rocks (in both currency and fuel and consequent CO2 production) is exhorbitant; Most of the cost of rock is the hauling cost. Thus, St. Louis is packed with brick buildings, and Kansas City with stone.

Unfortunatley, our society is trending toward the casual presumption that anything can be mindlessly hauled anywhere else. Thus, you now see metal-stud framed homes thousands of miles from the strip mines and coal pits; wood-framed or log houses thousands of miles from the newly clear-cut forest tracks in the decimated wilderness; bricks, hundreds of miles form any clay pit. Styrofoam thousands of miles from the petroleum refinery and spewing chemical plant. All to feed the mindless craving for "luxury", comfort (we're talking serous comfort here), and excess "decor" that dominates our society.

Same way people haul their own ass fifty miles to work in their luxury sedan because they got inadvertantly and unintentionally brainwashed by some jackass "country western" soap opera about how they wished they lived "in the country".

Bring on the $5 gasoline, as far as I'm concerned. It is well deserved.

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

I like your analysis of the situation, Minerva. Unlike many people you are looking at the entire situation rather than only at one isolated aspect of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Bill D
Date: 08 May 07 - 05:25 PM

shades of Beige

We are still building with wood because it is...for now...cheaper. Also, it is easier for an average guy to correct, upgrade, tinker with...etc. than concrete, brick or metal.
In some areas, wood is plentiful, in some it is scarce...but when it is available, it is often the cheapest, fastest way to cover your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 08 May 07 - 06:32 PM

Well, I am not asking why individuals or developers build with it..I ask why it is allowed, at least in certain places...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 08 May 07 - 06:49 PM

just some thoughts ...
In my former home tome in the Czech Republic, (several hundred years ago houses, and smaller buildings used to be wood. But probably around 400 years ago, people mostly switched to stone and brick construction probably because wood was harder to find.

My 87 year old great aunt lives in a 500 year old stone house. They usually built two stone walls and filled the space with lime and rubble
(walls are 3-4ft thick) OVer the centuries they have become very strong
and the thickness of the walls, keeps them cool in the summer and warm in the winter.

The more modern houses would be built with cinder block construction
and stucco finish..
BUt when I mention to my Czech relatives that in Vancouver its pretty much all woodframe construction, they often like the idea..thinking that home renovation would be easier with wood frame construction.

I like the idea of cob houses and straw bale construction - although it seems that there are no real building codes for these materials.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Rowan
Date: 08 May 07 - 07:26 PM

Well, I built my house using concrete, bricks, timber (my woodwork teacher always criticised us if we said we used wood in carpentry, called "Sloyd" in those days) and steel.

At 1000m ASL and 3 hours' drive from the nearest coast I think I'm safe from tsunami, but they didn't really cross my mind when planning. I'mm well out of the cyclone belt until global warming really kicks in and I did give that some thought, which is why it is a passive-solar house. At about 50m above the general terrain, which slopes to the north I don't have to worry about flooding and the local creek flows at about three teaspoons/month at the moment so I don't regard flooding as a problem.

Earthquakes haven't been recorded around here for a few megamillenia but it is a post and beam with compressed earth walls infilling, all on a suspended (concrete) slab and brick dwarf walls. The steel is the roof; steel frames play the devil with radio and other electromagnetic media. The various components were selected by using criteria such as, they best met the various requirements of such a house, they were available in terms of accessibility and affordability and, overall, minimised my footprint as much as I could within those constraints. Especially with me doing most of the work.

And I must confess, I have found working with timber to be more pleasing, to all the senses, than working at fabrications using metals, concrete, rock or bricks.

But bushfires do exercise my mind. Like Peace, I am well aware of what happens in fires both inside and outside buildings, having been an instructor and assessor in the Rural Fire Service. Fortunately, my ecological training allows me some ability to aesthetically manage the fuel hazards while still giving the impression (to most) that the bush is wild and not "managed".

But I too wonder about the South Carolinians who rejected legislation (on the grounds of their fifth amendment) that would have required houses that had been destroyed by Hurricane Hugo to be rebuilt using building codes (borrowed, I think, from the Cyclone Tracey aftermath) that would have improved their survivability, and about the urban-rural interface dwellers around Sydney and Melbourne who rebuilt their burned out homes in exactly the same places using exactly the same fire-prone rechniques that the burned out houses had.

A speaker at the 2003 Wildland Fire Conference described the Californian fires and all us Aussies wondered about the differences and similarities. It seemed the Californians lived in a local govt context where the house owners could build whatever they liked adjacent to public land and sue the public land managers if so much as a spark came over the fence. In our view, this took all the onus and responsibility off the private citizen and put it all onto the public authority and fitted with our, perhaps biassed, views on American society. But the Oz situation is really no better. Whereas local govt does have planning powers over developments, it usually chooses not to exercise them, a situation exacerbated when estate agents constitute the majority of councillors.

Enough rambling from me.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 07 - 12:17 PM

"Well, I am not asking why individuals or developers build with it..I ask why it is allowed, at least in certain places"...mg

To respond to what you said in your original post regarding why they would still allow people to build with wood in light of the Kansas tornado (among other recent disasters), as someone from a small midwest town, I have a hunch that many of the homes in Greensburg, Kan., weren't new homes.

Many small towns in the midwest, especially ones located a great distance from hub cities (Garden City, Hutchinson, Wichita, Dodge City, Pratt in this case) generally aren't seeing a boom of new several hundred thousand dollar homes being built. They are older homes that have been there for years.

I don't know if Greensburg was necessarily like that, but that's my hunch.

Regardless of what they homes there were built with, when an F5 tornado with 205 mph winds blows through, even the sturdiest of structures will sustain some damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 07 - 12:29 PM

I'm tellin' ya, man, the spherical stainless steel ball house that rolls in a high wind and floats out the tsunami is the answer! Buy one now. If you don't like being inside a metal ball, get the rubber version instead. Looks and feels and bounces just like a great big rubber ball!

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST,TTJ
Date: 16 May 07 - 11:36 AM

For Donuel, remember that ducks also float!

I like the idea of an earth-sheltered straw bale house with some concrete re-inforcement. This obviously wouldn't work in a low-lying area prone to flooding, but it would be good for areas subject to tornados. Areas prone to earthquakes would require some sophisticated shock-absorbing technology.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:34 PM

"Bring on the $5 gasoline, as far as I'm concerned."

That's about equivalent to £3 for an English gallon, or 60p a litre. That is cheap!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 May 07 - 08:25 PM

Current price here is about AUD$1.35 a litre...

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: 3refs
Date: 17 May 07 - 08:02 AM

"You cannot make the sun rise. You cannot stop it from rising. It is therefore beyond your power...or any human power. It is therefore in the jurisdiction of what we can term as "a higher power"..."higher" meaning something beyond our reach or control."

I'd like to suggest your wrong on this one L.H.! If we can use, what I'll refer to as artificial power(which we have), one has the ability to never witness the sun rise or forever have it on your horizon.

The ball idea is right on though!

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 May 07 - 06:38 PM

"Why are we still building with wood?"

          Marble has gotten too expensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 07 - 08:18 PM

Girlygirl 5:19 (man, I hate these cutesy names. lol): I mean, geez, the city of Seattle is built on a volcano.

Do you refer to Mt. Rainier?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:45 PM

The reason that building with wood is allowed is liberty. Liberty means you get to decide what kind of house you build or buy. If you want to buy a concrete house, you can; and you don't have to justify it to me or anyone else. If you want a wooden one, or a straw bale house, or a house trailer, or an underground bunker, you can decide that for yourself. You know what house is best for you. Or even if you don't, it's not my place, or anyone else's place to make that decision for you. This applies also to your religion, your philosophy, your choice in music, etc. Liberty is messy and inefficient, but central economic planning tends to be messier and less efficient.
Sincerely,
Kent Davis

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: mg
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:10 PM

yeah..I've been trying to figure out what volcano Seattle is built on..could be though...

And as for liberty..I am all for it..but people are not given options in housing..there are older homes and there are new development homes but it is the rare person, and I can't think of one, who has built his or her own home to specifications. And the builders, even the best, have to work with profit in mind and don't have to face long-term consequences in general. The public does, by being trapped in these houses of cards in tornados, by not being able to clean them properly after a flood, by burning alive in a fire. If there were true choices, and they could be implemented, it would be different, but for now it just isn't, at least the people I hobnob with.

I think the insurance people need to step up to the plate and make some noises in some areas aboutwhat is and isn't insurable in the future...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: mg
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:58 PM

Also fire departments..especially now where you have more townhouses..to me that is so scary...having a common wall with someone you don't know...do they leave the pots untended on the stove? Electric heaters near blankets etc. You just don't know and stuff can spread....and for apartment houses to be allowed to be built with something not really fireproof..nuts...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Rowan
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:01 AM

"but it is the rare person, and I can't think of one, who has built his or her own home to specifications."

Depending on what you mean by "to specifications", I have. Which is why I consider myself to be both rare and lucky, "Liberty" can be a moveable feast but the local building inspector has been known to approve dirt floors. Properly constructed, compressed and finished, of course, and not in "wet areas".

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Metchosin
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:44 AM

"but it is the rare person, and I can't think of one, who has built his or her own home to specifications."

I did as well, including drafting of the plans, I dug holes, I poured and screeded concrete, I worked on the framing, siding and roofing. I wired the place, did a fair bit of the drywall and most of the painting. A substantial amount of our building materials were produced within a 50 mile radius. The windows were made from recut salvage glass and a lot of the interior finishings were salvage as well.

We did not do it to be intentionally "green", the term was not coined then, we did it as a statement of independence. It was also the cheapest way, at the time, to provide ourselves with what we considered affordable housing and to provide us with the kind of house that we wanted, that had relatively little to do with suburbia.

At the time, we were not considered unique. A lot of our friends did exactly the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:49 AM

mg,
I respectfully disagree that "people are not given options" in housing. I have personally used the options of living in a 10-feet-wide house trailer, a concrete high-rise dormitory, a new brick house in a subdivision, a 1950s brick-and-stone-and timber mishmash, and a old farmhouse. My grandfathers each designed and built their own homes. My parents have had two houses built to their specifications (one a partly stone, mostly frame house and the other a log cabin, both in West Virginia, where tsunamis are unknown, tornadoes are rare, and stone and wood are plentiful). My wife and I are currently in the long, slow, expensive process of remodeling a partly-bricked wood frame house. If we were required to remodel with stone or brick, the process would be even slower. We know a good carpenter. We don't know a good mason. Just one more reason we like having liberty (and we'd like a little more, please).
Kent Davis

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 May 07 - 01:30 AM

I think if the insurance people stepped on the plate any more than they have the game would be over & we'd be out.
My mother lives on Cape Cod, been ther in her wooden house, right on the water for nearly 50 yrs & weathered mnay hurricanes & floods, never once even after riding out a few 100yrs storms, has she had to rebuild, renovate or restore her house but she does now have to move out because this 77 yr old women can't meet the costs of manditory flood ins. So much for ins. companies. They cover their asses, assets & profits, they are not that interested in covering the properties nor are they interested in in the practice of building any more than a bank wants to become a realitor.

The ones who are interested in how building are erected are the town & city building departments. When an owner whats a building it they that deciede what they want. They have the say above all others what they want, they say this is what & this is what I'll spend. If they can only go this far in the process then they hire an engineer, architect, designer, builder or contractor. For there the owner the rest figure out wat suits the owners needs & the means & methods it'll take to give the owner a product that suits the wants, needs & disires of the owner. From there the plans, ideas & drawings are overlooked by the building department to check if all is doable by codes & building standards & practices, before a construction permit
is issued along with plumbing, electrical, sewer & others permits. All is checked & ok'd before the start of the project. As the project continues the inspector have to visit the site before signing off during certain phases of construction. Depending on where the project is being built & the enviorment the building departments may have other local standards that need to be met. An example, San Francisco won't allow any wood shakes for roofing unless they been fire treaated or fire retardant, Mexico City is very careful about basements & cellars that need to be stable ontop of high water tables, Florida wants hurricane practices followed. So the building departments & inspectors are responsible for what goes up & how it gose up & sometime what is used. They see to it that all general standards & practices are adhered to & met up until signing & issuing an occupancy permit. This goes for commercial as well as residential through out the US. In the cases where someone wants a structure that's far from the usuall it's up to the owner/builder/architect/etc to convince the building departments of it usefullness & worthyness, they may or may not sign of on it. Some won't go for anything, some are more openminded than others as well as some may just be idiots & then there are that would love to see the results.
Some short cuts are taken sometimes but as someone who's been in the construction trades better than 35 yrs, it doesn't happen often without the knowledge of someone who signs off on it. There are some inspectors & departments that are lacking too as well as builders, designers etc. but not that many. In my lifetime I've seen far more that practice good building techniques than shoddy. And generally you only see shoddy workmanship & practice when the owner is trying to short change the builder into taking short cuts, that's where the building inspectors, town clerks & others come in to make sure all is "above board".
So, what it comes down to is personal judgment. I want this & have this much to spend, my concerns are such & such. Here's when "green building" & "environmentally friendly", structurally longevity, aesthetics & style come into play. The government & the building codes only regulate up to so much, and a good portion of that concerns safety, they do not enforce the ways & means or the hows' & whys', that is up to the owner & builder or who ever else is involved in the project unless it's a goverment project & government funds are involved. Yes, some one can use cheap concrete or do some otherwise shaddy practice or use some substandard material but they better hope that fails after they're dead because there is generally a trail to follow.
Mg this seems to be flowing a bit like the poverty thread where you'd love to regulate practices, for the better of those that don't know better & all the while doing it for their own good.
Anyway, I hope this has added a bit of light to the discussion.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 May 07 - 01:35 AM

The above also includes fire codes & permits

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 18 May 07 - 10:18 PM

So where is your mother going to move to? Seems to me she has made a lifestyle choice and should be left the hell alone.......

I had a mortgage closing recently where the appraiser indicated the property was in a flood zone. My husband- the attorney -who does our research indicated it was NOT in the flood zone -- none the less, my buyer, a first time buyer - young and broke - has to pay $100 a month in flood insurance premium to live on a street that has not had any flooding problems since the great flood of whenever it was.

The older I get, the angrier I get

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 07 - 10:10 PM

"The older I get, the angrier I get..."


             I've had just the opposite experience. The older I get, the harder it is to get mad.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are we still building with wood
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 May 07 - 01:49 AM

I've had just the opposite experience. The older I get, the less hard it is.


Oh.


Bye now...