12-09-2005, 11:54 AM
Most people assume that wood frame buildings are the only way to go. As a carpenter myself I once thought that way too.
Every material has it's pros and cons. It is my opinion, after 30 years in construction, that wood, as a structural material offers many more negatives than positives. Everyone is free to disagree with this.
So this topic is about alternative building methods and perhaps it’s a good idea to describe some reasons why alternative methods compared to “traditional” wood frame are worth considering. I’ll get into three here, though there are many more. And my focus here is only on alternative concrete buildings compared to wood frame. There are many other products and systems too.
My company is Castleblock and we specialize in “new” building technology and environmentally and economically smart practices. I am a carpenter by trade and a dozen years ago I began to get seriously involved in new alternatives. The reason - I was very unimpressed with the performance of wood frame generally and I noticed that while the price of lumber kept climbing the quality kept declining and I didn’t like that trend. I was also appalled at the workmanship in the trade and I prefer methods that are so simple they are harder to cheat on than to do right.
But as to alternatives and the reasons why:
1. History:
Wood Frame:
While most people consider wood frame the “traditional” method of building in historical terms that is not true. While concrete has been around 2,000 years wood frame, as practiced in the United States, has a 150 year history dating back to the invention of the circular saw blade (by a woman) in the 1850’s. Prior to that wood buildings employed “joinery” - hand hewn beams, mortise and tenon joints, wood pegs and tons and tons of labor. They also built with oak, chestnut (now basically extinct) and hickory. ...hardwoods, not soft woods. I will say that if I was a pioneer with a wagon - staking out my homestead in a virgin forest - I know what my house would be made from. But it’s not pioneer times any more.
So in world terms wood frame is actually the new kid on the block. And it performed much better when the old growth timbers were available. High quality stuff. But even those had high maintenance costs and were extremely vulnerable to fire (still are!). While we now perform concrete work in a new and improved manner - it is still concrete and has a long dependable history. My own experience had me wondering why, after hurricanes, tornadoes, firestorms and earthquakes the devastation was so vast. It’s largely been the building material itself (wood) and poor workmanship. The system lends itself to people cutting corners...and they do.
Basically the Three Little Pigs had someting to tell us.
Concrete:
Concrete was developed by the Romans a long, long time ago. It is still one of our best and most dependable building materials. The problem with concrete in the past was it was very labor intensive. It was necessary to invest labor and material to prepare two walls (forms) to produce one wall (concrete) and that was expensive. But once done the result could be useful for centuries. In Europe, a place with a history of old durable structures, the technology was developed in the 70’s to reduce the cost of producing concrete walls. Now the labor to make one wall is vastly less and also provides high insulation, sound attenuation and fire and wind resistance. This is done by using “stay-in-place” forms made from recycled plastic and cement. No recycled concrete is involved.
2. Economics:
According to the U.S. government the average life span of a wood frame home is 47 years. Some might believe that life span could be shorter in the tropics where humidity and termites are ever present. Hmmmm. Many mortgages are for 30 years. So a questions presents itself. What will your house be worth when the mortgage is paid off? If the house is in good condition it should be worth much more than you paid on your mortgage.
For most Americans their biggest single investment is their home. In Hawaii many families find that in their old age or upon their deaths the houses are so deteriorated that they are in need of demolition. What gets passed on to the kids? Look around. This could be one reason why there is so much poverty here. There has been little or no accumulation of wealth in home values here. In probate many properties are valued back to the raw land. And most of the old homes here were made from old growth redwood and fir.
We have the ability now to produce buildings which can last, with minimal maintenance, for centuries. At the same time they are easier and cheaper to cool or heat and generally have lower insurance and maintenance costs. They can also be largely built with unskilled or minimally skilled labor. The initial costs of construction might are slightly higher - but not much higher (generally around 5%). But the main economic benefits are having a house that will gain value, resist the elements and provide better shelter in extreme conditions (hurricanes, fires and earthquakes). Ever notice that when a disaster approaches most folks are heading for the local junior high school. It is a better built building and is rarely made of wood.
3. The Environment:
Too much to say here briefly. And believe it or not I’m trying to be brief. Some points:
a. Chemicals: Local codes require termite treatments of the site prior to wood frame construction. This requirement is waived for other “alternative” non-wood methods. Some folks don’t mind living in a chemical soup. Some do. But the treatments, initial and ongoing, cost money and are short term effective. Additionally the woods here are generally treated with Hi-Bor for termites. According to U.H. the most effective chemical treatments were banned years ago (too poisonous) and the ones available now are pretty weak tea. I was told by U.H. staff that when tested in their termite mounds the Hi-bor was effective for about three years. Three.
b. Trees: Not using wood reduces demand on our forests - and they are, as I’m sure you’ve heard, under strain with many consequences. If you can build a home without wood that will last 47 years you will have saved X number of trees. If you build a home that will last 100 years you can multiply the trees saved by 2. Etcetera.
c. Waste stream: In our work we use a concrete form product with high recycled content of polystyrene (packing foam). Polystyrene is one of the worst things to send to a landfill. Why? Because it is light and bulky and doesn’t break down. Recycled polystyrene is excellent as a filler/aggregate for concrete products. Why? Because it is light and bulky and doesn’t break down. It is also great insulation and when it is encapsulated with cement it is very fire resistant. It also offers zero calories for our termite buddies. Our homes have tons of recycled content and it makes good business sense.
So these are some of the unsexy reasons why alternatives to wood frame should be at least considered. As I mentioned earlier, every product, no matter what it is, has both positive and negative attributes. We merely focus our efforts on materials and methods that have the longest list of positives and the shortest list of negatives. Your list of attributes might be different than mine. This is subjective.
Wood is a very emotional material. It has grain and texture and color and is best used where those attributes can be appreciated - furniture and cabinetry. It’s weakest performance is as a structural material and there are very good alternatives available for those that are interested.
The Castleblock company is not the ony source of alternative technology in Hawaii. There are other ways to consider too. Best to be as informed as possible before you make decisions.
Aloha
Chairman, Punaweb Committee, MSPA
Edited by - Rob Tucker on 12/09/2005 16:04:59
Every material has it's pros and cons. It is my opinion, after 30 years in construction, that wood, as a structural material offers many more negatives than positives. Everyone is free to disagree with this.
So this topic is about alternative building methods and perhaps it’s a good idea to describe some reasons why alternative methods compared to “traditional” wood frame are worth considering. I’ll get into three here, though there are many more. And my focus here is only on alternative concrete buildings compared to wood frame. There are many other products and systems too.
My company is Castleblock and we specialize in “new” building technology and environmentally and economically smart practices. I am a carpenter by trade and a dozen years ago I began to get seriously involved in new alternatives. The reason - I was very unimpressed with the performance of wood frame generally and I noticed that while the price of lumber kept climbing the quality kept declining and I didn’t like that trend. I was also appalled at the workmanship in the trade and I prefer methods that are so simple they are harder to cheat on than to do right.
But as to alternatives and the reasons why:
1. History:
Wood Frame:
While most people consider wood frame the “traditional” method of building in historical terms that is not true. While concrete has been around 2,000 years wood frame, as practiced in the United States, has a 150 year history dating back to the invention of the circular saw blade (by a woman) in the 1850’s. Prior to that wood buildings employed “joinery” - hand hewn beams, mortise and tenon joints, wood pegs and tons and tons of labor. They also built with oak, chestnut (now basically extinct) and hickory. ...hardwoods, not soft woods. I will say that if I was a pioneer with a wagon - staking out my homestead in a virgin forest - I know what my house would be made from. But it’s not pioneer times any more.
So in world terms wood frame is actually the new kid on the block. And it performed much better when the old growth timbers were available. High quality stuff. But even those had high maintenance costs and were extremely vulnerable to fire (still are!). While we now perform concrete work in a new and improved manner - it is still concrete and has a long dependable history. My own experience had me wondering why, after hurricanes, tornadoes, firestorms and earthquakes the devastation was so vast. It’s largely been the building material itself (wood) and poor workmanship. The system lends itself to people cutting corners...and they do.
Basically the Three Little Pigs had someting to tell us.
Concrete:
Concrete was developed by the Romans a long, long time ago. It is still one of our best and most dependable building materials. The problem with concrete in the past was it was very labor intensive. It was necessary to invest labor and material to prepare two walls (forms) to produce one wall (concrete) and that was expensive. But once done the result could be useful for centuries. In Europe, a place with a history of old durable structures, the technology was developed in the 70’s to reduce the cost of producing concrete walls. Now the labor to make one wall is vastly less and also provides high insulation, sound attenuation and fire and wind resistance. This is done by using “stay-in-place” forms made from recycled plastic and cement. No recycled concrete is involved.
2. Economics:
According to the U.S. government the average life span of a wood frame home is 47 years. Some might believe that life span could be shorter in the tropics where humidity and termites are ever present. Hmmmm. Many mortgages are for 30 years. So a questions presents itself. What will your house be worth when the mortgage is paid off? If the house is in good condition it should be worth much more than you paid on your mortgage.
For most Americans their biggest single investment is their home. In Hawaii many families find that in their old age or upon their deaths the houses are so deteriorated that they are in need of demolition. What gets passed on to the kids? Look around. This could be one reason why there is so much poverty here. There has been little or no accumulation of wealth in home values here. In probate many properties are valued back to the raw land. And most of the old homes here were made from old growth redwood and fir.
We have the ability now to produce buildings which can last, with minimal maintenance, for centuries. At the same time they are easier and cheaper to cool or heat and generally have lower insurance and maintenance costs. They can also be largely built with unskilled or minimally skilled labor. The initial costs of construction might are slightly higher - but not much higher (generally around 5%). But the main economic benefits are having a house that will gain value, resist the elements and provide better shelter in extreme conditions (hurricanes, fires and earthquakes). Ever notice that when a disaster approaches most folks are heading for the local junior high school. It is a better built building and is rarely made of wood.
3. The Environment:
Too much to say here briefly. And believe it or not I’m trying to be brief. Some points:
a. Chemicals: Local codes require termite treatments of the site prior to wood frame construction. This requirement is waived for other “alternative” non-wood methods. Some folks don’t mind living in a chemical soup. Some do. But the treatments, initial and ongoing, cost money and are short term effective. Additionally the woods here are generally treated with Hi-Bor for termites. According to U.H. the most effective chemical treatments were banned years ago (too poisonous) and the ones available now are pretty weak tea. I was told by U.H. staff that when tested in their termite mounds the Hi-bor was effective for about three years. Three.
b. Trees: Not using wood reduces demand on our forests - and they are, as I’m sure you’ve heard, under strain with many consequences. If you can build a home without wood that will last 47 years you will have saved X number of trees. If you build a home that will last 100 years you can multiply the trees saved by 2. Etcetera.
c. Waste stream: In our work we use a concrete form product with high recycled content of polystyrene (packing foam). Polystyrene is one of the worst things to send to a landfill. Why? Because it is light and bulky and doesn’t break down. Recycled polystyrene is excellent as a filler/aggregate for concrete products. Why? Because it is light and bulky and doesn’t break down. It is also great insulation and when it is encapsulated with cement it is very fire resistant. It also offers zero calories for our termite buddies. Our homes have tons of recycled content and it makes good business sense.
So these are some of the unsexy reasons why alternatives to wood frame should be at least considered. As I mentioned earlier, every product, no matter what it is, has both positive and negative attributes. We merely focus our efforts on materials and methods that have the longest list of positives and the shortest list of negatives. Your list of attributes might be different than mine. This is subjective.
Wood is a very emotional material. It has grain and texture and color and is best used where those attributes can be appreciated - furniture and cabinetry. It’s weakest performance is as a structural material and there are very good alternatives available for those that are interested.
The Castleblock company is not the ony source of alternative technology in Hawaii. There are other ways to consider too. Best to be as informed as possible before you make decisions.
Aloha
Chairman, Punaweb Committee, MSPA
Edited by - Rob Tucker on 12/09/2005 16:04:59
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator