08-23-2008, 12:50 PM
The main problem with wooden structures on the island is that the bulk of the new ones were built by mainland contractors with mainland techniques. It doesn't work. Traditional post and pier construction can be very effective, and long lived, if maintained and not ignored. The key is paying attention to what is going on under the house and if there is evidence of damage, take care of it immediately. Unfortunately, most people throw lots of crap in under there, pay little attention to what is going on, don't maintain the vegetation around the house, and basically forget that you live in the tropics. As well attention to detail in building is key. As a boatbuilder, it's not uncommon to see 100 or year old boats that are basically sound, as long as they were properly constructed from the start. Termites are not near the problem that constant water, rot, and marine borers are.
Speaking of tropics, many forget that disaster is a fact of life in earthquake, lava, and hurricane zones. This is part of the reason historically there has been a tendency towards modest homes in much of the world--as there's just a fair chance that regardless of how you build, you're going to get wiped out. No kind of structure is going to withstand a lava flow, and for much of Puna is a risk statistically as large as any other.
While there are lots of good reasons to advocate concrete, I personally advocate wood building for ecological reasons. It is possible to build a modest wooden house with a neutral carbon footprint. Concrete would be more difficult to do so with, and the concrete industry in general is responsible for 5 to 10 percent of all global CO2 emissions, depending on who you talk to. This personally is a major concern for me, I understand others do not share it so. China is the largest producer of concrete, and the conditions in the plants are anything but healthy or humane. Rightly so, the timber industry is anything but benign, but by and large the only wood in a house at this point that comes from first growth virgin forest is interior trim stock, and a house made of any material is likely to have that, unless it is deliberately done without.
Teminix h20 by Jasco is a reasonably effective treatment, and copper compounds are more benign than much.
Speaking of tropics, many forget that disaster is a fact of life in earthquake, lava, and hurricane zones. This is part of the reason historically there has been a tendency towards modest homes in much of the world--as there's just a fair chance that regardless of how you build, you're going to get wiped out. No kind of structure is going to withstand a lava flow, and for much of Puna is a risk statistically as large as any other.
While there are lots of good reasons to advocate concrete, I personally advocate wood building for ecological reasons. It is possible to build a modest wooden house with a neutral carbon footprint. Concrete would be more difficult to do so with, and the concrete industry in general is responsible for 5 to 10 percent of all global CO2 emissions, depending on who you talk to. This personally is a major concern for me, I understand others do not share it so. China is the largest producer of concrete, and the conditions in the plants are anything but healthy or humane. Rightly so, the timber industry is anything but benign, but by and large the only wood in a house at this point that comes from first growth virgin forest is interior trim stock, and a house made of any material is likely to have that, unless it is deliberately done without.
Teminix h20 by Jasco is a reasonably effective treatment, and copper compounds are more benign than much.