Re: GBlist: Residential concrete questions

Pat Ballentine (Ballentine@voyager.net)
Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:24:14 +0000

Bruce Coldham wrote:
>
> Parie Hines wrote.....
> >Do you think that the idea of building "solid" houses which are
> >designed to last is a viable alternative? Does a longer life justify
> >using a system which may be less "green"? Or do people's needs and house
> >styles change too often to make this sort of long range planning
> >unrealistic?
>
> Parie, Longevity is a primary strategy to improving resource efficiency and
> also providing some constancy in our built environment which helps us know
> who we are. However, how can we plan reliably to achieve this ideal? I
> don't think it is a simple as just using durable materials, though that is
> a part of it.
>
> Timber framing (for example) has demonstrated longevity, and it has done
> that by virtue of it accommodating change rather than going the "brick
> shithouse" route. Frames are more flexible than planes ... they allow for
> the constant reconfiguring of space without getting themselves chewed up in
> the process. They also allow for disassembly and re-erection. (there are
> buidings around me that have been moved several times in their 200+ years
> of life).
>
> So here is where I find the first message for achieving longevity - Gordon
> said it years ago ..."long life .. loose fit".
>
> Don't bind your assemblies too tightly together.. and especially don't
> laminate short life materials with longer lived ones .. unless there's a simple, efficient way to recover the latter.

All:
Everything about that makes sense to me--I have never been able to find
information on how an extra-durable house could be analyzed according to
the ordinary "Life Cycle" system. I don't think it can be.

You could expect 500 years from a timberframe house because of the
reasons Bruce outlines. If you combine the frame with an extra-durable
SIP enclosure, the superstructure would all match the same target life.

Remaining factors--sitedrainage and extra-durable foundations like
poured concrete insulated, reinforced-- would go along with this idea
of an extra-durable structure.

Adaptablility is the reason to NOT embed the services inside walls.
they have a short life--7--12 years in homes, sometimes only 3 years in
offices. I like raceways for that reason, and also for the fact that
communications are in a state of rapid flux. We'll all add more wire,
cable or fiber in a few years' time. Make adaption easy--don't hide
services inside walls. Raceways don't penetrate the thermal boundary
and require elaborate sealing stragegies either.

> Here's the second route to longevity (and here I'm really wandering)...
Remembering that "a thing of beauty is a joy forever" suggests that
> producing buildings that people love and care about, and will fight to
> retain, is the context within which all this must occur. Here's the
> critical link between all this technology and the aesthetic delight which we so often find hard to factor into the ecomonic calculus.>

Yes, someone has to love a house enough to take care of it. Maintenance
is crucial. So build it beautiful if you build it durable.

Other comments on "extra-durable" or "raceways"??

Pat Ballentine
MZ

__________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
__________________________________________________________________