08-25-2008, 04:41 AM
That is really true.
One complaint that I will not contest with wood building--in houses--is that its techniques are really stuck in a rut, and it is most commonly a very materials intensive way of building--at least compared to the very slick methods employed by modern boat builders. It doesn't have to be, but often it is, and sloppy to boot. Concrete work has become much much more sophisticated and smart in application and can be very effective indeed. You could probably build a concrete airplane at this point, if you really set out to do it as a stunt.
To clarify my position, if it isn't clear, not to look like I'm busting Rob, because I'm not--if you're interested in building a large home in the tropics, in an area riddled with termites, of course concrete makes a LOT of sense. I know for some reason a lot of people want to do that. I don't advocate building large homes, and I don't advocate building in areas riddled with termites.
On the other hand, a composite built wood ocean sailing boat of 50 feet weighs as much is a house, is designed to take 10 plus earthquakes or the equivalent at sea, or worse, on a daily basis, and really needs to be able to withstand a free fall drop from 30 feet more or less flat upside down on its "roof." And they do, and do just fine. Materials matter not nearly as much as application and technique, although obviously some materials are better for one thing or another by some margin.
As well, you must consider not only the materials but the application. If you have a lot that is cleared, or else wise already screwed up, there's little to be lost by the damage that large machinery, cement trucks, boom trucks or the rest will cause to the site. If you're interested in very low impact with a high level of sensitivity to the native forest that may still exist on your land, you will need a style of building that you can mostly cart in on your shoulders. Different strokes for different folks, and, of course, different value sets.
It's simply a matter of the tool for the job. That all involves site, scale, your priorities and sensitivities, and ultimately, aesthetics. What's best? What does best mean to you? That is an unanswerable question, for a lot of reasons.
By the way, does any one know what the large maggot borer is that one will find in dead ohia? It's a great big thing, nearly the size of my thumb, looks like a beetle larva of some sort, but I generally don't get to see them too well as generally I just get a glimpse before they're sucked into the thickness planer. . .
One complaint that I will not contest with wood building--in houses--is that its techniques are really stuck in a rut, and it is most commonly a very materials intensive way of building--at least compared to the very slick methods employed by modern boat builders. It doesn't have to be, but often it is, and sloppy to boot. Concrete work has become much much more sophisticated and smart in application and can be very effective indeed. You could probably build a concrete airplane at this point, if you really set out to do it as a stunt.
To clarify my position, if it isn't clear, not to look like I'm busting Rob, because I'm not--if you're interested in building a large home in the tropics, in an area riddled with termites, of course concrete makes a LOT of sense. I know for some reason a lot of people want to do that. I don't advocate building large homes, and I don't advocate building in areas riddled with termites.
On the other hand, a composite built wood ocean sailing boat of 50 feet weighs as much is a house, is designed to take 10 plus earthquakes or the equivalent at sea, or worse, on a daily basis, and really needs to be able to withstand a free fall drop from 30 feet more or less flat upside down on its "roof." And they do, and do just fine. Materials matter not nearly as much as application and technique, although obviously some materials are better for one thing or another by some margin.
As well, you must consider not only the materials but the application. If you have a lot that is cleared, or else wise already screwed up, there's little to be lost by the damage that large machinery, cement trucks, boom trucks or the rest will cause to the site. If you're interested in very low impact with a high level of sensitivity to the native forest that may still exist on your land, you will need a style of building that you can mostly cart in on your shoulders. Different strokes for different folks, and, of course, different value sets.
It's simply a matter of the tool for the job. That all involves site, scale, your priorities and sensitivities, and ultimately, aesthetics. What's best? What does best mean to you? That is an unanswerable question, for a lot of reasons.
By the way, does any one know what the large maggot borer is that one will find in dead ohia? It's a great big thing, nearly the size of my thumb, looks like a beetle larva of some sort, but I generally don't get to see them too well as generally I just get a glimpse before they're sucked into the thickness planer. . .