When is Land Going To Be Open To Market Forces
Bob
News wrote:
> The Stalinist planning system the UK has, stifles the country in many ways.
> We have over expensive houses and high rents because of high land prices
> forces up the cost of manufactured goods. Land should be given over to
> market forces and people allowed to build residential homes where they want
> to. The only exception being designated areas of natural beauty and
> industrial areas.
(snip)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in the early 90's I wrote a lengthy article called "Fiscal Serfs", which
argued in much the same way as you do above. The cost of building a house
is in the region of 28,000 GBP. But the cost of the house is 100,000 gbp,
the difference being made up by the cost of the land.
That paper dealt with other areas of "fiscal serfdom" which probably had the
very unfortunate effect of leading to the demutualization of the building
societies, but the desired effect of killing usurious interest rates on
mortgages
and destroying the banking mafia, who had been asking for trouble for a very
long time.
Central to the argument was the reality that a plot of land (at that time) on
which to build a house was in the region of 60,000 gbp, whereas agricultural
land sold at between 1000 and 2,500 gbp per acre. That situation has
not changed.
The problems with your argument are:
a) If people were allowed to build anywhere (as in the case of this part of
Essex after the 1st and 2nd World Wars) the countryside would become
fragmented and views ruined, with no open countryside left.
b) It plays into the hands of the likes of back-handing ministers who want
to de-greenbelt large areas for the benefit of large house building
concerns and property racketeers to whom they may owe political
favours. As in the case of the present government, who would like to
concrete over 650 Sq. miles of rural England.
Regards, Bob
PS: I have taken the liberty of extending your thread to include
alt.politics.economics and uk.politics.economics which I think are
appropriate. I hope you don't mind ?
BS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
News
>
> > What about the possibility of building up? I would
> > love to be able to live in a high-rise block near the
> > city centre (non-public sector that is). Does
> > anyone know why no one builds high-rises anymore?
> > Is it a planning thing? Or (surely not) are there
> > commercial reasons?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> High rise building was discontinued for the bad idea it
> always was, because of the isolation of those who lived
> in these tower blocks. In general, they replaced urban
> slum areas of "two-up-two-downs". Living in a
> "street" allows everybody to be involved in the community
> - and to have a little garden and all the trappings of normal
> life. That is not possible if you live 20 floors up and never
> see you neighbours.
Bob, I think you have missed the mark. In the UK high rise was cheap way to
eliminate slums. Upper middle class architects, knowing little of working
class culture, designed faults for themselves to put in working class
families. It obviously didn't work.
There is nothing wrong with a modern high rise, as long as it is well
insulated in thermal and especially sound. I live on the 6th floor of a
private London b;lock. We all choose to live here and most here love it.
We have our private garden and which acts as our little village green in
the summer.
Building private high rises in London, without the car parking, which only
encourages cars near the centre, would solve some of the private housing
needs. All the local authority blocks that have been bought by private
companies and converted are a huge success. Horses for courses. Slum
dwelling working class could not adapt to the new environment - which was
not helped by the lack of entry door security and permanent caretakers as
you see in France. The continent have a culture of living in high-rise
blocks and never had the social problems the UK had.
> (But the ever rapacious building industry made
> a very good profit and also out of replacing the
> failed results. Nothing changes ! )
Planners, architects (who deny all responsibility for the abominations) and
builders all share the blame.
> If I did, I think I would kill myself in
> a week !
Don't knock it until you taste it. The area I live in is densely populated.
At the weekend there is buzz in the local pub, wine bars and restaurants.
But!!! I want to build a house to my own design. I can't find land, and
what I do find is outrageously priced. People actually buy perfectly good
houses, pull them down, and then build the house they want. There is so
much of a shortage of land that people resort to very expensively converting
barns to live in. Most people would not convert these if they had access to
some decent land.
News
>
> > The Stalinist planning system the UK has, stifled the
> > country in many ways. We have over expensive, small
> > houses and high rents because of high land prices
> > forces up the cost of manufactured goods. Land
> > should be given over to market forces and people
> > allowed to build residential homes where they want to.
> > The only exception being designated areas of natural
> >
> > Residential and agriculture have co-existed for
> > 1,000s of years. If someone wants to build a house
> > in a corner of a field then they should be allowed to
> > do so. Currently people can't. We have to live
> > somewhere, and the artificial shortage of land pushed
> > up land prices to silly levels.
> >
> > The country based Tory party is having its media to
> > use loaded terms as: "building o the green belt (only
> > been there since 1955)", "urban sprawl", "concreting
> > over the countryside (as if the featureless flat fields of
> > England are something special)". Don't be sucked in
> > by such propaganda.
> >
> > Splitting up the vast estates of the landed gentry is
> > another urgent priority, now the parasite hereditary
> > Lord's have gone.
>
> Back in the early 90's I wrote a lengthy article called
> "Fiscal Serfs", which argued in much the same way as
> you do above. The cost of building a house
> is in the region of 28,000 GBP. But the cost of the
> house is 100,000 gbp, the difference being made up
> by the cost of the land.
Bob, I assume 1990 prices here. In the south east of England, and way
beyond that is certainly not the case today.
> That paper dealt with other areas of "fiscal serfdom"
> which probably had the very unfortunate effect of
> leading to the demutualization of the building
> societies, but the desired effect of killing usurious
> interest rates on mortgages and destroying the
> banking mafia, who had been asking for trouble for
> a very long time.
Sounds good to me. Although the Building Societies were originally formed
to help people buy their own home and not be ripped off in the process. But
focus does change over time and with wealth accumulation.
> Central to the argument was the reality
> that a plot of land (at that time) on
> which to build a house was in the region
> of 60,000 gbp, whereas agricultural
> land sold at between 1000 and 2,500
> gbp per acre. That situation has
> not changed.
It certainly hasn't. the betterment tax act should be re-introduced. This
was introduced by the Labour government after the war, when they knew there
was to be a building boom after the bombings and delayed slum clearance.
When cheap agricultural land is given residential building permission the
price rockets and "obscene" profits are made by landowners. The betterment
act, quite rightly, taxed the profit on the difference by 100%. When the
Tories came into power in the 1950s they scrapped it - what a surprise!! As
they are rural based with many rich landowners in the party, hardly
surprising - just looking after each other, that;s all they have ever done.
The labour government in the 1960s re-introduced it again, but with only a
40% tax - still big licks are made on land with a 40% tax. Yet again the
Tory bumpkins scrapped it when Heath came to power to yet again line their
own pockets. Blair should re-introduce this tax as there is to be another
building boom within the next few years.
Some companies are encouraging speculators to buy one acre agricultural
plots, in the hope that the land will be given outline planning permission.
If so then the £3,000 will be worth £200,000. This is obscene profit and
rip off for the eventual resident of the house on the plot.
> The problems with your argument are:
I don't think there are any, but go ahead Bob.
> a) If people were allowed to build anywhere (as in
> the case of this part of Essex after the 1st and 2nd
> World Wars) the countryside would become
> fragmented and views ruined, with no open
> countryside left.
This stinks of NIMBYism. The old country argument. The countryside is
already fragmented anyway. Whether it is fragmented anyway is irrelevant.
Personally I see nothing wrong with building where people want to, and to
the design they want and to the height they want. the views you refer are
not exactly spectacular are they - I mean they are no Grand Canyon views are
they. Boring fields.
> b) It plays into the hands of the likes of back-handing
> ministers who want to de-greenbelt large areas for the
> benefit of large house building concerns and property
> racketeers to whom they may owe political favours.
With a free market in land, the property racketeers would disappear, as the
alcohol bootleggers did when they re-introduced alcohol in the USA after
prohibition. The shortage creates the sharks.
> As in the case of the present government, who
> would like to concrete over 650 Sq. miles of
> rural England.
Emotive statements like yours of "concrete over 650 Sq. miles of rural
England", is the propaganda weapon of the price hypers.
You are not quite right. The survey regarding housing needs was commissioned
under the last government and taken over to this one - they have only been
in power 2.5 years. The Tories would be doing pretty well what Blair is.
But I'm sure stacking the dominoes to line the pockets of their own.
The point is. The country needs an amazing amount of decent houses for
people to live in. WE HAVE TO LIVE SOMEWHERE.
Some facts:
1) The population of the UK has risen from 45 million 60 million since 1945.
2) 2.5 million homes suffer from sever damp: cost of fixing between 46 - 70
billion. Knock-on affects are that people duffer from cold and damp related
diseases costing the country an amazing amount of money.
3) 3 million people living in 1.5 million homes officially classified as
"unfit".
4) The 60 million people live only in 10% of the urbanised land in the UK.
Approx 15% of the land should be used for that size of population. The UK
has tons of land to build on despite what the country propagandists say.
5) Agriculture to the economy is in low single percentage figures. So, much
agricultural land is not worth keeping. (as an industry not worth seriously
taking into account).
6) 95% of the population are "urbanites".
In this country houses are tiny compared with other countries, as the total
prices are artificially hyped by the artificial shortage of land. These
proposed houses will have a smaller footprint than similar numbers in other
countries. So impact on the countryside will be less than it actually
should.
Liberalising the planning regs will make land more freely available driving
down land prices giving people more money to spend on the house construction
itself. This will create more jobs as money is released into industry
instead of being tied up in land values. The government can then introduce
some decent insulation regulations as people will be able to afford them - a
superinsulated house does not need a full heating system. The savings in
pollution output terms is phenomenal, as well as the benefits to health,
cutting down on national health expenditure.
The UK has approx 10% of houses build by selfbuilders - these are people who
have their own design and commission a builder to do the construction.
These people build to a far higher standard than the building regs. Usually
building to far higher insulation levels, saving fossil fuel, and higher
specifications than the developers. Their house are generally highly
individual compared to the surrounding houses raising the level of the
street they are built. In other counties the selfbuild market of all houses
built per year is:
Austria - 80% plus
Belgium - approx 65%
Italy - approx 65%
Sweden - approx 65%
Norway - approx 65%
Germany - approx 65%
France - approx 65%
USA - 30% (which is 1.2 million selfbuilds)
Within the past 5 years selfbuild in the UK has risen from 5% to 10%. This
can solve a lot of the governments problems by liberalising the planning
system. Just imagine if every village in the country gave over 30 plots of
0.25 acres just to selfbuilders. It would absorb a large number of homes
with minimum impact.
So. if the government promoted selfbuilding to European levels, the sharp
developers would be curtailed. But artificially hyped land prices is the
problem, created by a Stalinist planning system.
The government should take no notice of country NIMBYs. The needs of the
vast urban majority are paramount.
An excellent book on the planning land problem is:
Low Impact Development by: Simon Farlie.
Available from http://amazon.co,uk
About £10
A web site for the campaign "The Land Is Ours"
http://www.oneworld.org/tlio/
Quite an interesting web site in many aspects.
> Regards, Bob
>
> PS: I have taken the liberty of extending your
> thread to include alt.politics.economics and
> uk.politics.economics which I think are
> appropriate. I hope you don't mind ?
Be my guest. Nice to talk to you. I'm sure you agree that my arguments are
strong.
Adam
Excellent! I fully agree. The land ownership and planning problem affects us
all. It is a major issue that most people are not even aware of. Just look
at the house people live in Germany, France, and especially the USA and
Canada. They live in better houses because they don't pay a fortune for
land, which is freely available.
This issue should be tackled ASAP. If it was it would result in the quality
of life in the UK rising and industry, via the construction industry (also
the knock on affect of manufactured goods that supply it) being regenerated.
I may even send a donation to "The Land Is Ours" campaign.
cheers
JHogan2359
>Date: Sat, 27 November 1999 12:40
I don't understand why both you and Bob don't move to the US.
I live in a vary large metropolitian area in the southeastern US and land
within an hours drive of downtown can still be had for between USD15,000 and
25,000 per acre.
A very comfortable house in a residential neighborhood can be had for less than
USD150,000, and the terms are reasonable, by my standards--which are quite
high. If one looked around a while, lower housing costs can easily be found.
The weather is pleasant, the food is very good and the people are friendly,
especially to Brits, who sound ever so educated.
The only drawback is that you'll have to drive on the "wrong" side of the road.
(Some people here don't seem to have mastered that skill either, and they're
natives.)
If you are a living, breathing human being I will guarantee that you'll be able
to get a job. It may not initially pay as much as you like, but then you
don't have to sign a contract either.
But if you have the gumption to communicate over the internet in the manner you
do, you'll do ok.
Just a thought in the night.
JHogan
email works
News
to
> >eliminate slums. Upper middle class architects, knowing little of working
> >class culture, designed faults for themselves to put in working class
> >families. It obviously didn't work.
>
> idea the idea that architects are upper middle class?
I hope you don't mind me coming in on this. In the 1950s/60s the majority of
architects were definitely upper middle class. The class system, although
breaking down in the 1960s, would have dictated that upper middle classies
were in positions of doctors, architects etc. Not so much the case today,
but the vast majority of students who go on to higher education are of
middle class in origin - maybe some of their parents were of working class
origin, but middle class they are.
> Architects don't deny responsibility for the
> way that the tower blocks or office developments
> operate (or that many of the sixties/seventies
> buildings are abominations) - but they do deny
> responsibility for the process which brought
> them about.
You are about the first architect I've heard then that accepts some blame,
so I give you credit. But they could have cried out when it was clear that
mattes were not working (social duty). Also architects were fully involved
and influential in the high rise "new Britain" from the outset. Not the
only party involved, but up there with all the others who let us all down.
> In fact you'd be surprised how
> little influence architects actually exert -
> they simply design what they are asked
> to design by their developer clients and
> make sure that the building complies
> with the building standards, doesn't leak and
> the drains work.
How about structural calculations (I know the engineers do that not you
guys, but you are overall responsible), sound and thermal insulation levels,
ventilation etc. They appeared to leave all that out.
Not being personal.
cheers
News
> > I can't find land, and what I do find is outrageously
> > priced. People actually buy perfectly good
> > houses, pull them down, and then build the house
> > they want. There is so much of a shortage of land
> > that people resort to very expensively converting
> > barns to live in. Most people would not convert these
> > if they had access to some decent land.
>
Anywhere in the south east. A decent 0.25 acre plot, if you can one, will
go from between £160,000 and £200,000. Believe me I am looking. I intend
to build a superinsulated house of passive solar design that doesn't need a
heating system, or a very small one. To get what I want I may end up
emigrating. I am a typical middle class income person, who is prepared to
even build parts of the house, electrical and pipework and drylining. But
something so simple and fundamental to people in other countries is beyond
me.
I have travelled all over the world. In speaking to British people who have
emigrated to places as South Africa, Australia, USA, Canada etc, they
biggest reason why they emigrated was that they could not afford a decent
sized house in the UK. The hyped up land prices created by the artificial
shortage is one of the biggest reasons why millions of ethnic Britons have
left the country. Did the benefactors of the Stalinist planning system
care? Not a hot as long as they were in clover. To replace the exodus of
people from the UK, people of different culture, colour and creed were
imported. The tension in some parts of the country is clear to be seen
because of this.
All because of no access to cheap "land". Amazing the knock-on effects eh!
Land is the most fundamental aspect of the UK. It is everything as we are
all on it - well some of us are on far more of it than others.
News
> >> > I can't find land, and what I do find is outrageously
> >> > priced. People actually buy perfectly good
> >> > houses, pull them down, and then build the house
> >> > they want. There is so much of a shortage of land
> >> > that people resort to very expensively converting
> >> > barns to live in. Most people would not convert these
> >> > if they had access to some decent land.
> >>
> >> You can't buy land where? London?
> >
> > Anywhere in the south east. A decent 0.25 acre plot, if
> > you can one, will go from between £160,000 and £200,000.
> > Believe me I am looking. I intend to build a superinsulated
> > house of passive solar design that doesn't need a
> > heating system, or a very small one. To get what I want
> > I may end up emigrating. I am a typical middle class
> > income person, who is prepared to even build parts of
> > the house, electrical and pipework and drylining. But
> > something so simple and fundamental to people in other
> > countries is beyond me.
>
> for around £30,000. Near Edinburgh, say,
> £50-60,000. I'm sure that there are swathes of
> the north of England where land is available for
> equivalent prices. Why emigrate?
The point is that I will have to move to an area far away from were I
presently live and make a living. The possibility of me making a living in
the parts of the country where land is cheaper (not cheap, as none of it is
cheap), is slim. Moving to northern Scotland is emigration anyhow -
internal emigration. I may as well go a country that will pay me a decent
salary for my skills and not charge me the earth for a small piece of land.
There are many thousands of people like me, who do just the same thing. It
all comes down to one thing - LAND, its availability and price. We have
tons of the stuff but we are not allowed to use it.
The lack of, and artificial high prices of land, is probably the biggest
reason why millions of ethnic Britons have emigrated since the war. That
excuse is the most common given when I ask people in other countries why
they left the UK.
Andrew Campbell
are at, they are a result of willingnes to pay,
News <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:81rudj$s2o$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Andrew Campbell
to any nation
News <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:81ssg4$o9b$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > adn now you have explained to yourself why
> > the prices are high where you
> > are at, they are a result of willingnes to pay,
>
> Not at all. They prime reason why UK land prices are amongst the highest
in
> the world is that a artificial shortage exists. Land prices would
naturally
> be higher in some areas, but the prime reason is the planning regs (the
most
> rigid in the world).
>
>
News
> move to the US.
That is an option. But the gun laws I just don't like. I was followed down
the street 2 years ago by a man with a gun in his hand in downtown Chicago.
The thought of my kids being at school and wondering if some kid has taken
out the 4th year is disturbing to me. ;-) Well it is your birthright to
shoot each other I suppose ;-) ;-)
> I live in a vary large metropolitian area in the
> southeastern US and land within an hours
> drive of downtown can still be had for between
> USD15,000 and 25,000 per acre.
>
> A very comfortable house in a residential neighborhood
> can be had for less than USD150,000, and the terms are
> reasonable, by my standards--which are quite
> high. If one looked around a while, lower housing costs
> can easily be found.
I'm looking at land, if I can get it, at £160,000 plus for 0.20 acre, out in
the country. Yes that's British pounds at 1.6 $ to the £.
> The weather is pleasant,
Except for the odd hurricane and whirlwind. :-)
> the food is very good and the
> people are friendly, especially to
> Brits, who sound ever
> so educated.
>
> The only drawback is that you'll have to drive on the
> "wrong" side of the road. (Some people here don't
> seem to have mastered that skill either, and they're
> natives.)
I'm quite ambidextrous.
> If you are a living, breathing human being I will
> guarantee that you'll be able to get a job. It may
> not initially pay as much as you like, but then you
> don't have to sign a contract either.
>
> But if you have the gumption to communicate over
> the internet in the manner you do, you'll do ok.
>
> Just a thought in the night.
Canada and South Africa (Cape Town - great place) are good options. The
thought of being treated like a an illegal immigrant with your green card
system if off-putting. The questions they ask at the airport is enough to
put people off the USA for life. :-) :-) Many of my friends in London are
Americans.
News
News
> capacity is vital to any nation
The UK has two "ghost" acres abroad, for every one at home. That is, we
can't supply the food and raw materials to sustain the country ourselves.
Agriculture accounts for little of the UK economy, and is not "vital" to
this nation. If we can import half of our motor cars we can import half of
our food - they are both just commodities like anything else. What is vital
is the sea lanes to America, as we found out during WW2. In times of war
the nation can just feed itself if all open areas (parks as well) are given
to crops. We even import 97% of our timber, amounting to about £5 billion
per year. Lots of Wales and Scotland are crying out to be forested - they
were originally until men cut them down.
I advise you to read the other posts in this thread, and buy the book
recommended. That will give you a good background on this topic.
The land should be given over to market forces and stop this artificial
price hyping that is detrimental to the country as a whole.
Bob
News wrote:
(large snip)
> The point is. The country needs an amazing amount of decent houses for
> people to live in. WE HAVE TO LIVE SOMEWHERE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I quite agree. And Lord Stottard used exactly the same phrase
when I upbraided him about the biggest case of Gerrykmongering in the
history of the UK, when the Swansea "Tafia" built over 3 beautiful farms
to turn the Gower electorate socialist. ( In the best traditions of such
people, The Gower has now been annex by Swansea and has no say
over it's own affairs )
However...since the population of Britain is actually falling - and likely
to fall more, barring vast immigration, there is no logic is building over
yet more virgin country - when there are vast areas already built upon
- and in urgent need of rebuilding.
I quite agree with you that large areas are the subject of disgusting
decay due to political corruption. In the Northern Triangle, for example,
there are perfectly sound and solid houses standing empty, because
the industry of the North was closed down and given to the EU.
With a little money and some honest imagination (and honesty) I would
guess that a million houses could be opened up with renovation and
modernization in that area.
But that would require government money, since there is little profit
for property speculators in low cost housing in areas of high
unemployment. There are *vast* profits to be made in building
expensive properties in wealthy areas - especially on green field sites.
Most people who live in urban areas would not want to live in the
country. They think it too quiet and soon transform it into another
urban area !
You give some very informative figures below (see your prev. post)
and I do not argue with any of them.
I propose to you to suggestion that we live in a country made up of
a rich diversity of people with many different tastes and views - and
what would be one family's heaven would be another's hell.
Protecting green areas, which produce our oxygen is, in my view, an
increasingly important issue. Sprawling random building in green
belt would, inevitably, result in more roads with more cars and
more pollution - with ever more people tempted to commute from
areas not served by high speed transport by car.
Blair's plan to concrete over 650 sq.miles of rural S.E.England as a
reward for his property speculator backers is a recipe for
suffocation - and part of his plan to turn us all into semi-urban
voters who are traditionally Labour voters.
It would be the biggest act of Gerrymandering in the history of the
world !
Regards, Bob
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
News wrote:
> > Muttley wrote:
> >
> > > What about the possibility of building up? I would
> > > love to be able to live in a high-rise block near the
> > > city centre (non-public sector that is). Does
> > > anyone know why no one builds high-rises anymore?
> > > Is it a planning thing? Or (surely not) are there
> > > commercial reasons?
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >
> > High rise building was discontinued for the bad idea it
> > always was, because of the isolation of those who lived
> > in these tower blocks. In general, they replaced urban
> > slum areas of "two-up-two-downs". Living in a
> > "street" allows everybody to be involved in the community
> > - and to have a little garden and all the trappings of normal
> > life. That is not possible if you live 20 floors up and never
> > see you neighbours.
>
> Bob, I think you have missed the mark. In the UK high rise was cheap way to
> eliminate slums. Upper middle class architects, knowing little of working
> class culture, designed faults for themselves to put in working class
> families. It obviously didn't work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not disagree with that.
---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> There is nothing wrong with a modern high rise, as long as it is well
> insulated in thermal and especially sound. I live on the 6th floor of a
> private London b;lock. We all choose to live here and most here love it.
> We have our private garden and which acts as our little village green in
> the summer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm happy you are happy ! But, apparently, you would prefer to be
living in a house ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> (snip)
>
> Don't knock it until you taste it. The area I live in is densely populated.
> At the weekend there is buzz in the local pub, wine bars and restaurants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ye-es. My idea of a "buzz" is badger knocking at my back door
and demanding that I give him the shepherds pie. As you say, it is
horses for courses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> But!!! I want to build a house to my own design. I can't find land, and
> what I do find is outrageously priced. People actually buy perfectly good
> houses, pull them down, and then build the house they want.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is what (the rich ones) do around here. It is frowned on
by local people.
> There is so
> much of a shortage of land that people resort to very expensively converting
> barns to live in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the very, very rich ones !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Most people would not convert these if they had access to
> some decent land.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you believe it ! The snob value of a converted barn is
astronomic ! They are usually occupied by phoney professionals
who are no better than they ought to be.
You are quite right that land is very hard to find in our crowed
Island - and one with planning permission is outrageous. There
is no simple answer to this. Sometimes it is possible to persuade
people with large gardens to sell part of their land.
Regards, Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Coburn
land taxation as the ONLY means of government income. You will find
that if the land owners actually have to pay the costs associated with
the privilege of rent collection and or protection of tenure rights,
they will quickly become much more amenable to trading such rights
and/or much more productive in their use of the land. It is not
possible, however, to create a system in which land is less expensive
than it should be: Land is not freely available because everyone wants
it and there is not enough. You would also find that high rise
dwellings would become very attractive financially. Most people must
live close to where they work, and most working environments are in
cities. The idea that we can all live in 3 bedroom homes located 2
miles from the hospital where we are employed is a little bit outside
the realm of possibility.
News wrote:
>
> > >> > But!!! I want to build a house to my own design.
> > >> > I can't find land, and what I do find is outrageously
> > >> > priced. People actually buy perfectly good
> > >> > houses, pull them down, and then build the house
> > >> > they want. There is so much of a shortage of land
> > >> > that people resort to very expensively converting
> > >> > barns to live in. Most people would not convert these
> > >> > if they had access to some decent land.
> > >>
Andrew Campbell
News <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:81ttua$574$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
News
A country bumpkim or bumpkin origins? Blind us all with your wisdom. Back
up your views - if you can of course. And that's if you know what your
views are in the first place.
News
> > amount of decent houses for people to live in.
> > WE HAVE TO LIVE SOMEWHERE.
>
>
> Yes, I quite agree. ...
>
> However...since the population of Britain is actually
> falling - and likely to fall more, barring vast immigration,
> there is no logic is building over yet more virgin
> country - when there are vast areas already built upon
> - and in urgent need of rebuilding.
Bob,
There is nothing special about the English countryside - boring flat fields.
Only 10% of the UK is urbanised - a small amount of land. Rebuilding the
inadequate housing will entail that less houses will actually be built upon
the land, as we need more space.
> I quite agree with you that large areas are the
> subject of disgusting decay due to political
> corruption. In the Northern Triangle, for example,
> there are perfectly sound and solid houses standing
> empty, because the industry of the North was closed
> down and given to the EU.
Transferring government departments to the north of England would help.
Michael Hesseltine advocated to the Thatcher to transfer the army (Sandhurst
and navy HQs to the north of England). The south east political Mafia would
have none of it. the power base of the UK is in the south east of England.
Thatcher did not help as she centralised the country - that is usually the
first thing a tyrant does.
> With a little money and some honest imagination
> (and honesty) I would guess that a million houses
> could be opened up with renovation and
> modernization in that area.
Renovation is not the answer. High levels of insulation can rarely be
achieved. It is generally cost effective to rebuild to higher standards
with modern materials and methods. Renovating small houses that were poorly
designed and built is not the way.
> But that would require government money, since
> there is little profit for property speculators in low
> cost housing in areas of high unemployment.
> There are *vast* profits to be made in building
> expensive properties in wealthy areas - especially
> on green field sites.
The betterment tax would curtail that. Not to build in the south east will
take public money to transfer industry to the north of England, Wales &
Scotland. No one wants to pay extra taxes to do it.
> Most people who live in urban areas would not
> want to live in the country.
I disagree. Many people would love to live in a rural, more semi-rural,
location. They are herded into cities. The UK was the first country to
urbanise in the last century, and the first to de-urbanise. The country
people have put a brake on this.
> They think it too quiet and soon transform
> it into another urban area !
That's not the case for everyone; and urban people should not be
generalised.
> You give some very informative figures below (see
> your prev. post) and I do not argue with any of them.
>
> I propose to you to suggestion that we live in a
> country made up of a rich diversity of people
> with many different tastes and views - and
> what would be one family's heaven would be
> another's hell.
You are stating the obvious. I have lived in a 6th floor flat for the long
time. Some of my semi-rural, suburbanite relatives think I am mad to live
here. Ones mans meat is another mans....
> Protecting green areas, which produce our oxygen
> is, in my view, an increasingly important issue.
Producing oxygen is a vital point, but the needs of the 60 million or
overwhelmingly urban population is paramount. If you want to produce
oxygen then plant forests - they produce far more than grass, especially
when growing. 97% of our timber is imported at a cost of 5 billion per
year. That could virtually be eliminated in 5 years by planting forests in
low populated high unemployment areas. Promote timber frame construction in
houses for the many millions that are to be produced, and we will have even
more oxygen and the balance of trade eliminated. Timber frame houses are
the norm in the USA and Canada - they look like any other house and can be
clad in brick - they also have higher thermal insulation levels reducing
pollution emissions.
> Sprawling random building in green belt
That emotive word again, "green belt". The green belt is a desert. Because
of it's no mans land status nothing gets done with the land - it is not
utilised to maximum effect.
> would, inevitably, result in more roads with
> more cars and more pollution - with ever
> more people tempted to commute from
> areas not served by high speed transport
> by car.
Not necessarily. Why not build whole new cities (not like Milton Keynes),
with train access, metro tramways, designed for people to walk around, and
houses with insulation values that of Sweden & Canada, instead of the wafer
thin crap the building regs allow here.
> Blair's plan to concrete over 650 sq.miles of
> rural S.E.England ....
I would rather the houses were built elsewhere, but are south easterners
going to pay the extra taxes? Not likely, so the south east it will have to
be.
> It would be the biggest act of Gerrymandering
> in the history of the world !
Bob, you are bordering on paranoia.
The point is that land should be given over to the free market, instead of
being subject to the most restrictive planning laws in the world. The
Council for the Protection of Rural England were vastly influential in
formatting the 1947 Town & Country planning act - the culprit. They
insisted on it being re-titled to add the word "country", to differentiate
from the urban environment. This was fatal. Giving land over to market
forces , will overall drive down prices from the silly levels we presently
have. Other countries have free planning systems and they don't suffer
adverse effects. The only people who benefit from the existing system are
large landowners. I'm no fan of developers, but they have to buy the land
at high prices too, and that is passed onto the buyer; who invariably spends
a fortune on a small plot and house with appalling insulation levels. Mr
Average gets screwed again.
News
> a system of raw land taxation as the ONLY means
> of government income. You will find that if the land
> owners actually have to pay the costs associated with
> the privilege of rent collection and or protection of
> tenure rights, they will quickly become much more
> amenable to trading such rights and/or much more
> productive in their use of the land.
Mr Coburn,
Interesting concept. But highly unlikely to be adopted, so in the short
term it would not help in reducing the artificially high land prices we
endure.
> It is not possible, however, to create a system
> in which land is less expensive than it should be:
I totally disagree. It is possible, totally possible.
> Land is not freely available because everyone
> wants it and there is not enough.
If you read some of my other posts you will find that there is tons of land
in the UK. The main point of this thread is that we don't have access to
it, creating an artificial shortage, which drives up prices to silly levels.
No one except landowners benefit.
> You would also find that high rise dwellings
> would become very attractive financially.
High rise has its place, but as we found out in the 1960s, no panacea.
> Most people must live close to where they work,
> and most working environments are in
> cities.
Not so. More people are now working from home via computer line. I do so
occasionally. The cities are getting smaller as people move out, or try to
move out, of them. Regenerating the inner cities is highly desirable, but
will only partly attack the housing problem.
> The idea that we can all live in 3 bedroom
> homes located 2 miles from the hospital
> where we are employed is a little bit outside
> the realm of possibility.
Not really.
News
> and are looking for a decent excuse.
That's a last resort. I, and millions like me, want to have decent housing
that doesn't cost us the earth. It is land: its availability and
artificially high prices that is the problem. It is also a problem for
most other peole in the UK.
> Are you sure it isn't economic reasons - a
> better life, sunshine, lifestyle, money - that
> sort of thing. Most people I know who have
> lived or worked abroad or emigrated have
> done so for these kinds of reasons.
No not at all. I have been all over the world. I lived three years in the
Middle East. When in South Africa, Australia, Canada and the USA, and I
meet Brits living there, invariably, when getting down to what really made
them emigrate, it was the attraction of having a large decent house that
doesn't cost them the earth.
My main point is not that of emigration, it is of the Stalinist planning
laws that artificially drive up land prices in the UK. I was just
expressing a personal point in frustration of the present appalling system.
Adam
Andrew Campbell <aca...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:WMz04.9876$LX2.7...@brie.direct.ca...
> congratulations on being so ignorant
One born every minute. Where do they come from?
Richard Caley
ac> because the uk's history has taught them that agricultural
ac> capacity is vital to any nation
What hole have you been living down?
We have far more food production capacity than we need. We pay lots of
farmers money to not produce for this reason. We prop up food prices,
making life hard for the poor, because the massive over-capacity would
otherwise drop the price of food to a point where farmers wouldn't be
able to afford the lifestyle they are acustomed to.
Agricultural capacity is not a problem.
Planning laws are there because they give lots of oportunities for
busybodies to run other people's lives.
There was a radio 4 program last week where a planning officer was
going on about the terrible fact that some people make a house into
two flats without Big Brother telling them they can! The horrer of it!
Note, this is not about creating sub-standard accomodation, or
accomodation in an are or even a building designated as
non-residential, just putting in an extra kitchen etc so two small
households replace one large one. The end of civilisation as we know
it.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Andrew Campbell
cities of the usa, not something that europeans with their culture should
try to emulate
Mr. Coburn <michael....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:38437BDB...@gte.net...
> If you actually wish to solve your problem then adopt a system of raw
> land taxation as the ONLY means of government income. You will find
> that if the land owners actually have to pay the costs associated with
> the privilege of rent collection and or protection of tenure rights,
> they will quickly become much more amenable to trading such rights
> and/or much more productive in their use of the land. It is not
> possible, however, to create a system in which land is less expensive
> than it should be: Land is not freely available because everyone wants
> it and there is not enough. You would also find that high rise
> dwellings would become very attractive financially. Most people must
> live close to where they work, and most working environments are in
> cities. The idea that we can all live in 3 bedroom homes located 2
> miles from the hospital where we are employed is a little bit outside
> the realm of possibility.
>
Adam
> refusal because the roof light projected more
> than 50mm from the roof surface, I've
> had.....shit! now you've got me going.
>
> Joking apart, it's about time that people understood
> the damage the Planning System itself does to
> the built environment (not protect it as it was intended)
> with its ludicrous system of diktats about how
> *everything* should/will look; and its huge cost to
> business as the endless bureaucratic system drags
> applications out for months on end.
Not only that, but if you have an application turned down, you appeal, it
costs you 1000s in obtaining a planning consultant, you win the appeal, you
still loose your 1000s, and they were at fault.
That's only the beaurocracy. It is what the 1947 planning act upholds, not
allowing people to build houses on available land, that is the problem.
cheers
News
> we need. We pay lots of farmers money to not
> produce for this reason. We prop up food prices,
> making life hard for the poor, because the massive
> over-capacity would otherwise drop the price of
> food to a point where farmers wouldn't be
> able to afford the lifestyle they are acustomed to.
>
> Agricultural capacity is not a problem.
Richard,
The land that is not being used to produce food, and costs us money in
subsidies to keep idle, should be given over to provide houses for
people. Make land a part of the free market. Everyone benefits, people
will have affordable houses, and our taxes will be less as we are not
supporting wealthy farmers to do sweet eff all. The subsidised farmers will
benefit by selling some of their idle land.
> Planning laws are there because they give lots
> of oportunities for busybodies to run other people's
> lives.
Public money pays these people to harass us too. Get rid of them, then they
can do something useful (like be surveyors in the building boom as land
become a part of market forces), and the tax burden is relieved.
Also working out in the real world will force them into being less
obnoxious.
Adam
> to the bombed out inner cities of the usa, not
> something that europeans with their culture should
> try to emulate
I don't know what you are very poorly trying to say. A major contributor to
the inner city decay in the USA is largely due to the gun laws they have,
which turned some areas into wars zones. people naturally left. Nothing to
do with agriculture and land being put to market forces.
You would do well to read all the posts on this thread. And then THINK about
it a lot.
cheers
News
> >That's only the beaurocracy. It is what the 1947 planning act upholds,
not
> >allowing people to build houses on available land, that is the problem.
> >
>
> few good reasons for the planners to be in existence.
Why?
Richard Caley
ah> Actually I tend to think that designation of land use is one of the
ah> few good reasons for the planners to be in existence.
To increase the distance people have to drive to work and so increase
congestion?
Adam
> ah> few good reasons for the planners to be in existence.
>
> To increase the distance people have to drive to work
> and so increase congestion?
In the UK we a system called a "train network". It is more popular than
ever, with the government attempting to increase it. Receiving a lot of
media attention at the moment. Amazing! Trains! amazing! They go choo,
choo.
News
> >
> >
>
> So that I/you/we don't get a new petro-chemical works at the bottom of
> our gardens.
That's very different to opening up land to market forces to break the
artificial shortage that drives land prices up.
News
> ah> few good reasons for the planners to be in existence.
>
> To increase the distance people have to drive to
> work and so increase congestion?
The man of wisdom! Obviously your knowledge of congestion is as good as
your knowledge of British agriculture.
Richard Caley
ah> Actually I tend to think that designation of land use is one of the
ah> few good reasons for the planners to be in existence.
>> To increase the distance people have to drive to work
>> and so increase congestion?
a> In the UK we a system called a "train network".
So, the planning rules are good becasue they increase the profits of
the train operating companies?
Why not build houses where people want to be?
Richard Caley
>>> Actually I tend to think that designation of land use is one of the
>>> few good reasons for the planners to be in existence.
>> Why?
ah> So that I/you/we don't get a new petro-chemical works at the bottom of
ah> our gardens.
You don't need planning laws for that you just need nusance laws.
Andrew Campbell
Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:eyh3dtm...@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk...
News
My, my, you are actually learning. Quite right. If people want to live on
the edge of a field, in a village, in the country somewhere, in a city, they
should have the right to do so. Give the land over to market forces and
that's what will happen, not to mention land prices will drop as more of it
will be available.
Keep reading the thread. It's working!
Andrew Campbell
to punish the petrochemical plant for its misbehaviour
Muttley <Mut...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:824f05$hf9$1...@news1.cableinet.co.uk...
>
> Alan Hardie <a*x*har...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:vWJEOOZEMVEafO...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 21:21:49 -0000, "News"
> > <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> >That's only the beaurocracy. It is what the 1947 planning act
upholds,
> > >not
> > >> >allowing people to build houses on available land, that is the
> problem.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Actually I tend to think that designation of land use is one of the
> > >> few good reasons for the planners to be in existence.
> > >
> > >Why?
> > >
> >
> > So that I/you/we don't get a new petro-chemical works at the bottom of
> > our gardens.
> >
>
> I wouldn't be particularly bothered about a petro-chemical plant at the
> bottom of my garden. If it blew up it would have to pay compensation and
> the Common Law would be perfectly capable of making sure that my rights to
> clean air and a quiet law were protected.
>
> There is no reason for planners to get involved.
>
>
Muttley
Richard Caley
[what is pol.co.uk, and how do they manage to attract so many
nutters?]
In article <823uil$bek$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, News (n) writes:
n> Keep reading the thread. It's working!
Oh do grow up. I've been arguing against stupidities like the planing
laws here for a long time. Almosty certainly since long before you
knew this medium existed.
Richard Caley
[If you put what you say below what you ar referring to your message
would make much more sense you know]
In article <%Ge14.10624$LX2.8...@brie.direct.ca>, Andrew Campbell (ac) writes:
ah> So that I/you/we don't get a new petro-chemical works at the bottom of
ah> our gardens.
>> You don't need planning laws for that you just need nusance laws.
ac> that is what planning laws are
No, we have planning laws _and_ nusance laws. The planning laws are
there to stop you doing things which don't otherwise get blocked by
other laws, eg they are not causing a nusance.
A huge chmicl plant at the end of your garden might cause a nusance
(eg killing off your roses), that woul dbe covered by other laws. If
it causes no nusece or if for instance we are talking about some
inoculous workshop which quoety dos whatever it does with you none the
wiser unless you read the sign, then you need plnning laws to enable
busybodies to block them.
Similarly, if you make changes to your home which harm the neighbours
(say blocking out all light to their garden) then other laws will get
you, similarly if you make your property unsafe fro the people you
rent it to. f a busybody wants to control your choice of things which
harm no one except possibly yourself, they need planning rules.
Richard Caley
ac> aha, but you went up with it and so did your kith and kin, so none is there
ac> to punish the petrochemical plant for its misbehaviour
I believe the law would probably take an insterst in the crater.
Of course if the company is above the law (eg they own enogh
politicians) this is not going to appen, but in that case they would
won the planning sub comitte of the council too.
News
> You are quite right that land is very hard to find
> in our crowed Island - and one with planning
> permission is outrageous. There is no simple
> answer to this. Sometimes it is possible to
> persuade people with large gardens to sell
> part of their land.
Bob,
The UK is only overcrowded compared to other countries. You are believing
the myths and propaganda. There is tons of land. Only 10% of it actually
built on. Lots of the other stuff is idle as the EU pays farmers to keep it
that way as we can grow as much food as we need. Availability of land is
not a problem. The problem is antiqautaed planning laws that prevent people
from building on the stuff creating an artificial shortage driving up land
prices.
We need land to enter market forces, with monitoring by the monopolies
commission so too much of it doesn't fall into the hands of the few. After
all it is just a commodity like anything else.
News
>
> Oh do grow up. I've been arguing against
> stupidities like the planing laws here for a
> long time.
A bit of light hearted banter that didn't work ;-)
> Almosty certainly since long before you
> knew this medium existed.
I actually connected the machines to the initial kernel of this new thing
called the Internet, of the univ I was at in the 1980s Beat that.
Andrew Campbell
they would ignore it
Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:eyhd7sp...@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk...
Muttley
plant's insurers.
Andrew Campbell <aca...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:3Bm14.10718$LX2.8...@brie.direct.ca...
> aha, but you went up with it and so did your kith and kin, so none is
there
> to punish the petrochemical plant for its misbehaviour
>
> Muttley <Mut...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:824f05$hf9$1...@news1.cableinet.co.uk...
> >
> > Alan Hardie <a*x*har...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:vWJEOOZEMVEafO...@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 21:21:49 -0000, "News"
> > > <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> >That's only the beaurocracy. It is what the 1947 planning act
> upholds,
> > > >not
> > > >> >allowing people to build houses on available land, that is the
> > problem.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually I tend to think that designation of land use is one of the
> > > >> few good reasons for the planners to be in existence.
> > > >
> > > >Why?
> > > >
> > >
> > > So that I/you/we don't get a new petro-chemical works at the bottom of
red
> With a free market in land, the property racketeers would disappear, as the
> alcohol bootleggers did when they re-introduced alcohol in the USA after
> prohibition. The shortage creates the sharks.
How naive.
>
> The point is. The country needs an amazing amount of decent houses for
> people to live in. WE HAVE TO LIVE SOMEWHERE.
The UK already has more houses than homeless people. We are in fact
continuing to pay for high-value properties to be kept empty, rather
than housing people in them. The problem here is private ownership, not
the lack of a market.
red
> If you read some of my other posts you will find that there is tons of land
> in the UK. The main point of this thread is that we don't have access to
> it, creating an artificial shortage, which drives up prices to silly levels.
> No one except landowners benefit.
I concur. The problem, then, is the property relations enforced by
capitalism.
red
> I don't know what you are very poorly trying to say. A major contributor to
> the inner city decay in the USA is largely due to the gun laws they have,
> which turned some areas into wars zones. people naturally left. Nothing to
> do with agriculture and land being put to market forces.
>
That is a ludicrous oversimplification. In the first case, it is
idiotic to attempt to frame so broad a social trend in such specific and
absolute terms. I also think you are mistaking cause for effect - the
urban warzone developed AFTER the broad migration of the middle classes
to the suburbs, abandoning the inner cities to the poor and
disenfranchised. The fact that people who have nothing to lose take up
the gun should be no surprise to any student of history. The decline of
the American city centre has far more to do with the dogmatic capitalism
practiced in the US than with their gun laws.
> You would do well to read all the posts on this thread. And then THINK about
> it a lot.
Indeed.
red
>
> > Sounds to me that you just want to emigrate
> > and are looking for a decent excuse.
>
> That's a last resort. I, and millions like me, want to have decent housing
> that doesn't cost us the earth. It is land: its availability and
> artificially high prices that is the problem. It is also a problem for
> most other peole in the UK.
Yes. Most people have nothing to gain from the maintenance of the
current system of proprty ownership.
> No not at all. I have been all over the world. I lived three years in the
> Middle East. When in South Africa, Australia, Canada and the USA, and I
> meet Brits living there, invariably, when getting down to what really made
> them emigrate, it was the attraction of having a large decent house that
> doesn't cost them the earth.
>
> My main point is not that of emigration, it is of the Stalinist planning
> laws that artificially drive up land prices in the UK. I was just
> expressing a personal point in frustration of the present appalling system.
Whoa there, sunshine. For all your bellyaching about Stalinist control,
you seem perfectly happy, or at least sympathise with those who ARE
perfectly happy, to take advantage of the Group Areas Act and the
oppression of the majority South African population for the benfit of a
white ruling class. For someone with such a high opinion of the demos,
you are remarkably eager to exploit the brutalities of the ruling class.
News
Which is better than what we have now.
News
I really don't know what you are on about. What are you on about in
"demos". Are you on about the recent WTO demos or something? You have
your wires crossed somewhere. You answer was nothing to do with text above
it.
News
You may have a point innthe social/political aspects, but the inner blight
of the USA has nothing at all to do with a mpre liberaliased planning
system. Nothing at all.
News
>
> > With a free market in land, the property racketeers would disappear, as
the
> > alcohol bootleggers did when they re-introduced alcohol in the USA after
> > prohibition. The shortage creates the sharks.
>
> How naive.
Not really. Prohibition reated the mafia in the USA. The bootleggers went,
but the Mafia stayed as it is a deep rooted organisation with a stable
organised crime history.
> > The point is. The country needs an amazing amount of
> > decent houses for people to live in. WE HAVE TO
> > LIVE SOMEWHERE.
>
> The UK already has more houses than homeless people.
Of course it has more house than homeless people.
> We are in fact continuing to pay for high-value
> properties to be kept empty, rather than housing
> people in them. The problem here is private
> ownership, not the lack of a market.
You are right in that there are lots of vacant properties. Much of this
property is not what people want. Much of it was designed and built for
another era. Much of it is poorly insulalated and really only fit for
demolition.
If land is open to market forces ALL property will be cheaper and
affordable. Homeless people could build there own timber house for a small
sum. We are stopped from accessing land to build on.
Please read this book:
Low Impact Developemnt
by Simom Farlie
http://www.amazon.co.uk
Andrew Campbell
a goal of the quarter acre lot of grass in the suburbs, causing the middle
class to leave the city centres....... European culture attaches extra
value to being in the marketplace meaning it did not have the exodus of the
middle class from the city centres
canada fits between this, cities liketoronto have the very best residential
areas right in the middle of the city,l while in Calgary and edmonton the
model is more like the american cultural one
to push the quarter acre of green grass is one of the causes of the bombing
out of american city cores
red <r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote in message
news:3847F23F...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net...
Andrew Campbell
surrounded by
News <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:829bv8$298$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Adam wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know what you are very poorly trying to say. A major
contributor
> to
> > > the inner city decay in the USA is largely due to the gun laws they
> have,
> > > which turned some areas into wars zones. people naturally left.
Nothing
> to
> > > do with agriculture and land being put to market forces.
> > >
> >
> > That is a ludicrous oversimplification. In the first case, it is
> > idiotic to attempt to frame so broad a social trend in such specific and
> > absolute terms. I also think you are mistaking cause for effect - the
> > urban warzone developed AFTER the broad migration of the middle classes
> > to the suburbs, abandoning the inner cities to the poor and
> > disenfranchised. The fact that people who have nothing to lose take up
> > the gun should be no surprise to any student of history. The decline of
> > the American city centre has far more to do with the dogmatic capitalism
> > practiced in the US than with their gun laws.
> >
> > > You would do well to read all the posts on this thread. And then THINK
> about
> > > it a lot.
> >
> > Indeed.
>
Andrew Campbell
as in democratic
News <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:829c9p$2h5$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Andrew Campbell
increasing pressure to missuse it in many ways, so such a retreat from
zoning regulation will supply but a temporary respite if it even does that
the price for land is almost entirely a function of willingness to pay
News <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:829ct7$2t5$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
News
> that there will be ever increasing pressure
> to missuse it in many ways, so such a retreat
> from zoning regulation will supply but a
> temporary respite if it even does that
You are clearly not too bright. Read the posts on the thread. Land is
finite bit still enough to meet the full needs of the population, which at
present it doesn't.
Read all of the threads. Get the point. Undertand.
News
> to, the one that makes a goal of the quarter acre
> lot of grass in the suburbs, causing the middle
> class to leave the city centres....... European
> culture attaches extra value to being in the
> marketplace meaning it did not have the
> exodus of the middle class from the city centres
You know little. Inner city blight was prevalent in the UK with Liverpool,
Manchester, Birmingham etc, despite ridiculous planning system, that
prevents people from having access.
> canada fits between this, cities liketoronto have
> the very best residential areas right in the middle
> of the city,l while in Calgary and edmonton the
> model is more like the american cultural one
And the British. Look at British cities. Nothing to do with land access.
> to push the quarter acre of green grass
> is one of the causes of the bombing
> out of american city cores
Americas inner city problem was its silly guns laws, lack of a socail; state
and rigid racialism, etc
Andrew Campbell
made by government to destroy the industry they were based one,k now i am
not discussing the validity of those choices but it was those choices like
in a northern canadian gold mining town that has its mines run out of gold,
the companies choose to close their operations and the towns die, that is
different than the american penchant for the suburban lifestyle
News <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:829jjg$769$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Andrew Campbell
agricultiral land, the solution is to more efficiently use the current urban
space, not allow the antisocial idiots like yourself do destroy for your own
personal temproary relief from a not particularly existant problem, as
alrady noted there are opther areas in great britain where the prices are
very reasonable, the prices that you are complaining about are only the
result of willingness to apy those prices
News <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:829j25$6pf$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Mr. Coburn
>
> > If you actually wish to solve your problem then adopt
> > a system of raw land taxation as the ONLY means
> > of government income. You will find that if the land
> > owners actually have to pay the costs associated with
> > the privilege of rent collection and or protection of
> > tenure rights, they will quickly become much more
> > amenable to trading such rights and/or much more
> > productive in their use of the land.
>
> Mr Coburn,
>
> Interesting concept. But highly unlikely to be adopted, so in the short
> term it would not help in reducing the artificially high land prices we
> endure.
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I live in Seattle, Washington,
USA. It's been a hectic week.
The secret is to push taxes in that direction. To push for a shift
from transaction taxes towards a tax on privilege.
> > It is not possible, however, to create a system
> > in which land is less expensive than it should be:
>
> I totally disagree. It is possible, totally possible.
Wow! That is some vivid imagination you have there.
> > Land is not freely available because everyone
> > wants it and there is not enough.
>
> If you read some of my other posts you will find that there is tons of land
> in the UK. The main point of this thread is that we don't have access to
> it, creating an artificial shortage, which drives up prices to silly levels.
> No one except landowners benefit.
But that is the point, you see... If the only way the government can
preserve land's scenic or historical significance is to actually
purchase the land, thus relieving the owner(s) of their tax obligations
then the proper balance will be achieved. The tax is based on the
supposed value of the land. As the land value increases due to planning
or zoning or any other fiddling around by government then so too does
the tax. The only way the owner can pay the tax is to put the land to
use and that means that he would build accommodations on it or actually
farm it, or he'd be forced to sell it. The land should belong to those
who would actually use it.
> > You would also find that high rise dwellings
> > would become very attractive financially.
>
> High rise has its place, but as we found out in the 1960s, no panacea.
How else can all those people live within walking distance of their
jobs.
> > Most people must live close to where they work,
> > and most working environments are in
> > cities.
>
> Not so. More people are now working from home via computer line. I do so
> occasionally. The cities are getting smaller as people move out, or try to
> move out, of them. Regenerating the inner cities is highly desirable, but
> will only partly attack the housing problem.
You make a valid point, but I am considering moving back to the city. I
do a considerable amount of work at home but I must still go to the
office. The traffic is a nightmare.
> > The idea that we can all live in 3 bedroom
> > homes located 2 miles from the hospital
> > where we are employed is a little bit outside
> > the realm of possibility.
>
> Not really.
Yes. Really.
Vaughan James Sanders
.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>You are right in that there are lots of vacant properties. Much of this
>property is not what people want. Much of it was designed and built for
>another era. Much of it is poorly insulalated and really only fit for
>demolition.
>
>If land is open to market forces ALL property will be cheaper and
>affordable. Homeless people could build there own timber house for a small
>sum. We are stopped from accessing land to build on.
>
material, brick / block is much cheaper and far superior.
I don't know whether you have noticed, but we live in a damp maritime
climate, timber is prone to rot rather quickly, especially the fast
growing soft woods. Incidentally the more you insulate a house the more
you have to vent it to stop condensation causing damp problems.
BTW, Mrs Thatcher did at least try to make the planning rules the same
for everybody. If a planning application met the current criterion and
was turned down by the council, it was overturned on appeal. The local
councils didn't like this and when she was gone, it soon reverted back
to the old arbitrary system plus a charge for an appeal as a deterrent.
Have you ever noticed what a local councillor can get planning for
compared to Joe public.
Ps. a timber framed house can only compete on cost with a brick / block
house where speed is a cost i.e.. interest on borrowed money.
A brick / block house is just as quick but prone to delays from the
weather.
PPS. News, take my advice, when you have finished putting the world to
rights and build this new house you keep threatening. Find yourself a
couple of decent bricklayers and build a proper one. People in the
construction industry are prone to call a spade a spade, they call a
timber framed house a "shed".
Jamie
--
Vaughan James Sanders
Mr. Coburn
then the problem is resolved. More importantly: If the only means by
which the city government can support itself is to tax the value of land
within its jurisdiction then the city cannot afford to own much land.
So long as the government is reasonably democratic the city owned land
will occupied by parks, and schools, and such other utilizations that
cannot produce an immediate cash flow but which the true majority of the
citizenry wishes to "protect" from development. The green spaces and
school yards will not be turned into parking garages because the voting
public would not allow it. You can just forget about vacant lots and
dilapidated buildings.
Andrew Campbell wrote:
>
> have you ever visited detroit where land withing a few blocks of whatever
> commerce there is there has no value, that is city land......
>
> Mr. Coburn <michael....@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:384974E7...@gte.net...
> > Andrew Campbell wrote:
> > >
> > > it is also the phenomeae that cantributed hugely to the bombed out inner
> > > cities of the usa, not something that europeans with their culture
> should
> > > try to emulate
> >
> > You may be missing the point... If an acre of land in the middle of a
> > city is worth a lot of dough, then the existence of a slum thereon will
> > not be financially tolerable. City land is priced by the foot, and the
> > value of the land derives from the surrounding land, surrounding
> > infrastructure, and potential for business (proximate population). To
> > leave a building vacant or to let a building deteriorate would be
> > extremely expensive to the land owner. There should be NO WAY he could
> > pay the tax on the land without placing some reasonable accommodation on
> > the land. The value of the land is based on its proximity to commerce
> > and population. Land not so located is naturally less valuable and
> > attracts much less tax. Land in the countryside would be affordable to
> > those who do not need to be next to business and who do not need roads.
> > (remember now that land taxes are the only way to finance the roads, and
> > the land owners must pay for such roads). The use of transaction taxes
> > for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure (especially
> > roads, bridges, and property rights enforcement organizations such as
> > courts and prisons) in lieu of taxes on asset values (primarily land
> > taxes) is probably the primary reason for inner city decay. In most
> > such decayed areas the tax on the value of the land is VERY low, while
> > sales, vat, income, and real estate improvements (buildings, etc.) taxes
> > are used to fund government. This ALLOWS the decay.
> >
> >
> > > Mr. Coburn <michael....@gte.net> wrote in message
> > > news:38437BDB...@gte.net...
> > > > If you actually wish to solve your problem then adopt a system of raw
> > > > land taxation as the ONLY means of government income. You will find
> > > > that if the land owners actually have to pay the costs associated with
> > > > the privilege of rent collection and or protection of tenure rights,
> > > > they will quickly become much more amenable to trading such rights
> > > > and/or much more productive in their use of the land. It is not
> > > > possible, however, to create a system in which land is less expensive
> > > > than it should be: Land is not freely available because everyone
> wants
> > > > it and there is not enough. You would also find that high rise
> > > > dwellings would become very attractive financially. Most people must
> > > > live close to where they work, and most working environments are in
> > > > cities. The idea that we can all live in 3 bedroom homes located 2
> > > > miles from the hospital where we are employed is a little bit outside
> > > > the realm of possibility.
> > > >
> > > > News wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > But!!! I want to build a house to my own design.
> > > > > > >> > I can't find land, and what I do find is outrageously
> > > > > > >> > priced. People actually buy perfectly good
> > > > > > >> > houses, pull them down, and then build the house
> > > > > > >> > they want. There is so much of a shortage of land
> > > > > > >> > that people resort to very expensively converting
> > > > > > >> > barns to live in. Most people would not convert these
> > > > > > >> > if they had access to some decent land.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> You can't buy land where? London?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anywhere in the south east. A decent 0.25 acre plot, if
> > > > > > > you can one, will go from between £160,000 and £200,000.
> > > > > > > Believe me I am looking. I intend to build a superinsulated
> > > > > > > house of passive solar design that doesn't need a
> > > > > > > heating system, or a very small one. To get what I want
> > > > > > > I may end up emigrating. I am a typical middle class
> > > > > > > income person, who is prepared to even build parts of
> > > > > > > the house, electrical and pipework and drylining. But
> > > > > > > something so simple and fundamental to people in other
> > > > > > > countries is beyond me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can get a decent plot of land in the highlands
> > > > > > for around £30,000. Near Edinburgh, say,
> > > > > > £50-60,000. I'm sure that there are swathes of
> > > > > > the north of England where land is available for
> > > > > > equivalent prices. Why emigrate?
> > > > >
> > > > > The point is that I will have to move to an area far away from were
> I
> > > > > presently live and make a living. The possibility of me making a
> living
> > > in
> > > > > the parts of the country where land is cheaper (not cheap, as none
> of it
> > > is
> > > > > cheap), is slim. Moving to northern Scotland is emigration
> anyhow -
> > > > > internal emigration. I may as well go a country that will pay me a
> > > decent
> > > > > salary for my skills and not charge me the earth for a small piece
> of
> > > land.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many thousands of people like me, who do just the same
> thing.
> > > It
> > > > > all comes down to one thing - LAND, its availability and price. We
> have
> > > > > tons of the stuff but we are not allowed to use it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The lack of, and artificial high prices of land, is probably the
> biggest
> > > > > reason why millions of ethnic Britons have emigrated since the war.
> > > That
> > > > > excuse is the most common given when I ask people in other countries
> why
> > > > > they left the UK.
Andrew Campbell
is only 500 years old in my case
Vaughan James Sanders <j_sa...@custom1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p4AT9AAP...@custom1.demon.co.uk...
News
> > properties. Much of this property is not what
> > people want. Much of it was designed and
> > built for another era. Much of it is poorly
> > demolition.
> >
> > If land is open to market forces ALL property
> > will be cheaper and affordable. Homeless
> > people could build there own timber house for a small
> > sum. We are stopped from accessing land to
> > build on.
> >
> Where on earth do you get the idea that timber
> is a cheap building material, brick / block is much
> cheaper and far superior.
Brick & block is not much cheaper. Timber frame is slightly cheaper and of
superior insulation. A cheap timber frame method pioneered in the UK, and
been around for 40 years, is the Segal method; well respected. Timber frame
kit companies will design a house for you, make it in a factory to exacting
standards and assemble the house on site in 4 days. You run bricks up the
outside to make it look traditional if you want. Quick and effective and
can work through winter - the norm in the USA, Canada and Scandinavia.
> I don't know whether you have noticed, but
> we live in a damp maritime climate,
80% of new built house in Scotland are timber framed. Some of the oldest
building in England are timber dating back about 1000 years. Some lousy
material.
> timber is prone to rot rather quickly,
> especially the fast growing soft woods.
Not if it is built properly.
> Incidentally the more you insulate a
> house the more you have to vent
> it to stop condensation
> causing damp problems.
True, and not a problem to do so. You need to vent Brick and block too.
Putting in vapour barriers or using breathing walls will prevent any rot in
any wood. All you fears of timber, an infinite non-polluting natural
resource, that gives off oxygen when growing, are unfounded. So now you can
relax.
> BTW, Mrs Thatcher did at least try to make
> the planning rules the same for everybody.
But she didn't! Trying and doing are two different things. She had to
de-wealth her party's senior members to do it properly - that was never
going to happen.
> If a planning application met the current
> criterion and was turned down by the
> council, it was overturned on appeal.
> The local councils didn't like this and
> when she was gone, it soon reverted back
> to the old arbitrary system plus a charge
> for an appeal as a deterrent. Have you ever
> noticed what a local councillor can get
> planning for compared to Joe public.
> Ps. a timber framed house can only
> compete on cost with a brick / block
> house where speed is a cost i.e..
> interest on borrowed money.
So an advantage!!! Cost, and speed, a hell of an advantage.
> A brick / block house is just as quick but
> prone to delays from the weather.
And rooms that are out in sizes, and generally expensive to heat unless you
heavily insulate the cavities.
> PPS. News, take my advice, when you
> have finished putting the world to
> rights
I assume you naively think the present planning system and land laws OK
then?
> and build this new house you
> keep threatening. Find yourself a
> couple of decent bricklayers and
> build a proper one.
The bricklayers would only be used in the foundations and maybe some brick
cladding, nothing else. Timber frame! 4 million houses in the USA each
year are built, and almost all are timber frame, from desert conditions to
cold damp north west climates. 4 million each year cant be wrong.
> People in the construction industry are
> prone to call a spade a spade, they call a
> timber framed house a "shed".
The ignorant British construction industry would wouldn't they. They still
think Churchill is still in charge. They are noted for their slowness in
adopting new methods, materials and poor workmanship. Look at the quality
of houses in Canada and Germany; and the levels of air-tightness and
insulation they have. The British construction industry have opposed every
increase in insulation level that has been introduced. In short the British
construction industry is riddled with "cowboys", from the developers right
down to brickies.
We import 97% of out timber right now, to the tune of £5 billion each year.
Plant all those forest in the UK and have most houses timber frame and we
will have a lot warm well insulated people and a clean natural timber
industry, with forests that do not pollute, and in fact do the reverse in
making the air cleaner. And we would be a lot richer in not imprting £5
billion worth each year. The cement industry is a large polluter, being the
largest polluter after WW2 when the clean air acts came in. The less we
have of these dirty industries the better.
Thanks for the advice. I won't be taking one bit of it as it is ill-advised
;-)
PS
If you need some books on the subject contact me directly. :-)
Vaughan James Sanders
freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> >
>> Where on earth do you get the idea that timber
>> is a cheap building material, brick / block is much
>> cheaper and far superior.
>
>Brick & block is not much cheaper. Timber frame is slightly cheaper and of
>superior insulation. A cheap timber frame method pioneered in the UK, and
>been around for 40 years, is the Segal method; well respected. Timber frame
>kit companies will design a house for you, make it in a factory to exacting
>standards and assemble the house on site in 4 days. You run bricks up the
>outside to make it look traditional if you want. Quick and effective and
>can work through winter - the norm in the USA, Canada and Scandinavia.
>
yard and buy a sheet of shuttering ply, then leave it out in the garden
to get wet and see what happens. This is the type of wood that is used,
even in some of the most prestigious kit houses. Check out the price of
marine ply. One more time brick/block is probably quicker in man hours.
Timber in the USA, Canada and Scandinavia 9unlike the UK) is cheaper
than bricks.
>> I don't know whether you have noticed, but
>> we live in a damp maritime climate,
>
>80% of new built house in Scotland are timber framed. Some of the oldest
>building in England are timber dating back about 1000 years. Some lousy
>material.
>
Oak framed is a different story, the last time I built with oak an 8in
by 8in beam was £35 per foot. BTW if you start now, planting all this
unwanted farm land with oak, in two or three hundred years it will be
ready for harvest.
>imber is prone to rot rather quickly,
>> especially the fast growing soft woods.
>
>Not if it is built properly.
>
>> Incidentally the more you insulate a
>> house the more you have to vent
>> it to stop condensation
>> causing damp problems.
>
>True, and not a problem to do so. You need to vent Brick and block too.
>Putting in vapour barriers or using breathing walls will prevent any rot in
>any wood. All you fears of timber, an infinite non-polluting natural
>resource, that gives off oxygen when growing, are unfounded. So now you can
>relax.
>
Actually you don't, the roof is vented the same on either construction.
On a timber frame the brickwork cladding has to have vents.
I didn't say that. BTW you got a shock coming to you when you try to
build this new house, you'll have the nimby's, eco warriors, uncle Tom
Cobbly and all objecting and sticking their nose. God help you if a
common newt or snail has been seen on the land.
>
>> and build this new house you
>> keep threatening. Find yourself a
>> couple of decent bricklayers and
>> build a proper one.
>
>The bricklayers would only be used in the foundations and maybe some brick
>cladding, nothing else. Timber frame! 4 million houses in the USA each
>year are built, and almost all are timber frame, from desert conditions to
>cold damp north west climates. 4 million each year cant be wrong.
Not wrong, just inferior to brick/block construction methods.
>> People in the construction industry are
>> prone to call a spade a spade, they call a
>> timber framed house a "shed".
>
>The ignorant British construction industry would wouldn't they. They still
>think Churchill is still in charge. They are noted for their slowness in
>adopting new methods, materials and poor workmanship. Look at the quality
>of houses in Canada and Germany; and the levels of air-tightness and
>insulation they have. The British construction industry have opposed every
>increase in insulation level that has been introduced. In short the British
>construction industry is riddled with "cowboys", from the developers right
>down to brickies.
Don't believe what you see on the TV, British bricklayers are among the
best in the world. Although their probably a dyeing bread now, after the
way the industry has been treated over the last few years. BTW the roof
insulation has recently been increased to 8inch, not much of a cost
increase you would think. Off course you now need, on a chalet roof 8
inch rafters where 4 inch were only needed before.
>
>We import 97% of out timber right now, to the tune of £5 billion each year.
>Plant all those forest in the UK and have most houses timber frame and we
>will have a lot warm well insulated people and a clean natural timber
>industry, with forests that do not pollute, and in fact do the reverse in
>making the air cleaner. And we would be a lot richer in not imprting £5
>billion worth each year. The cement industry is a large polluter, being the
>largest polluter after WW2 when the clean air acts came in. The less we
>have of these dirty industries the better.
As I said, the only woods that can withstand our climate take hundreds
of years to grow. All the others have to be protected by brickwork for
example, this means cement. I suppose the plastic vapour barriers that
are used in timber frame construction are really environmentally
friendly. Actually News, plastic is starting to take over a lot from
wood, windows, soffits, facias for example, along with brick they equal
no maintenance.
BTW the Romans were pretty famous for their building. I never noticed a
timber frame when visiting Pompeii or Rome, they used millions of bricks
though.
>Thanks for the advice. I won't be taking one bit of it as it is ill-advised
>;-)
I'll try again anyway. Priorities, 1/ foundations 2/ damp, this includes
making shore that the plumber you employ is not called Sid the leak.
Incidentally the building reg's on insulation are a minimum you can put
in as much as you like.
>If you need some books on the subject contact me directly. :-)
News you'll learn, that in construction there is no substitute for
experience.
I could write the books for you.
News
> family home in yarrow feus
> is only 500 years old in my case
What the hell are you on about. If you have something tom say, say it.
Writing non-sensical one sentences is very silly.
News
> >If you need some books on the subject contact
> >me directly. :-)
>
> News you'll learn, that in construction there is no
> substitute for experience. I could write the books
> for you.
Experience! You know my sister is an appalling driver. She has been
driving for 20 years. She won't go over 25 mph and on a roads she is not
familiar with. 20 years experience of driving. Sounds good doesn't is? 20
years of driving badly though.
Your response in castigating brick and block was poor. You conveniently
ignored the fact the 4 million homes in the USA each year are built of
timber and 80% in Scotland. Our timber is imported from countries that are
predominant in timber construction. In a brick house the roof is timber and
only some felt and tiles keep it from the weather. The floors are timber
but shielded from the wet weather too. The only addition from brick house to
timber framed is that the inner skin is timber. The inner skin is shield
from the weather too. Also the foundations need not be as deep as the house
is lighter.
Ever heard of breathing walls? I doubt it. Ever heard of composite timber
"I" beams? I doubt it. If you have heard of them. I doubt it you have
worked with them. I suggest you do some research into timber, or timber
framed homes, as you clearly do not know too much.
Either you are one for building industry old wives tales, or you have shares
in cement and/or bricks. If the country switched over to timber and grew
the timber in the country we would be a lot better off than being in the
crap your industry has served up in the past and the balance of payment
would disappear, not to mention the massive environmental gains in many
aspects to the UK.
I am serious. Contact me directly and I will give you book's to read.
Andrew Campbell
superior ot timberframe, the resrponse was that my families home in yarrow
feus is timeber and only five hundred years old, no wonder you are so
confused by reality
News <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:82ecdm$6q1$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
News
> > frame is slightly cheaper and of
> > superior insulation.
>
> set down by the Building Standards - specifically,
> walls must meet a U-value of 0.45 W/m2 deg C.
> Which is to say a brick/block wall will have the same
> level of "warmth" as a timber frame wall.
Clarification. The hollow walls of timber framed houses may be filled with
thick insulation which will far exceed what brick and block can offer. The
internal walls and floors may be filled with sound insulating materials.
Using spaced studs you can eliminate thermal and sound bridging in timber
frame. You can't do that easily with brick and block.
> > A cheap timber frame method pioneered
> > in the UK, and been around for 40 years,
> > is the Segal method; well respected. Timber
> > frame kit companies will design a house for
> > you, make it in a factory to exacting
> > standards and assemble the house on site
> > in 4 days.
>
> Timber frames are made up on jigs laid on
> the ground and put together like an Airfix
> model - as soon as you alter it it costs money to
> change - a price which gets passed on to you.
Design! Know what you want up front, don't muddle through. Later, timber
frames can just as easily be extended as brick and block.
> >You run bricks up the
> >outside to make it look traditional
> > if you want.
>
> Which is what people normally do -so instead
> of 2 leaves of brick, you have one, so erection
> times of timber frame is not necessarily *much*
> quicker because you have to build a leaf of
> brick as well. Timber frame manufacturers argue
> that you get the roof on quicker with timber
> frame and so allow the other trades into the
> house quicker. I'd guess it's in the region of
> about 1- 2 weeks quicker - great for volume
> house builders, but for a one- off house?
It is quicker and you can work in the winter. If you arrange to have the
roofers on site a day or two after the frame erection there is a dry
workspace under. If you arrange to have the bricklayers run the cladding up
at the same time, from a concrete pad to walls and roof could be 2 to 3
weeks. Using gypsum fibreboard drylining, stapling to the timber studs the
internal walls may up in no time at all. Gypsum fibreboard's add rigidity
to a house.
> What's two weeks when you could have
> your own made to measure house designed
> for you.
If the project is run properly a timber framed house will be far quicker to
build than brick and block - a fact!!!! A timber famed house can be of any
design you want. You don't have to take an off-the-shelf design.
> The comparison is like a ready made
> suit vs. an off the shelf one from
> Debenhams.
Not at all!!!!
> If you are spending (whatever)
> 100-200K on a new house why
> settle for a kit which won't fit you
> and isn't hugely cheaper.
They are cheaper, and faster in build and can be designed to your own
design.
> >80% of new built house in Scotland are
> >timber framed. Some of the oldest
> >building in England are timber dating
> >back about 1000 years. Some lousy
> >material.
> >
> >> timber is prone to rot rather quickly,
> >> especially the fast growing soft woods.
> >
> >Not if it is built properly.
>
> ...and if it rains for 2 weeks when the
> frame is up and before the roof is on,
> the outer leaf built and the building
> paper membrane fixed?
You don't allow the frame to go up until you are sure the roofers are fully
booked. The wood in the fame's are treated so getting wet for a week or two
doesn't make any difference. Exactly the same can apply to brick and block
with floor and roof timbers.
> Timber warps. It also burns.
Using composite timber "I" beams that is not an issue. They don't warp or
shrink or squeak when walked on. The depth of the "I" beams means that
superinsulation may be utilised saving money on a heating system, as in
Canada and Scandinavia.
In Sweden, timber houses have a lower insurance premium. Wood burns at a
set rate, so they can determine the rate of fire for escape. Using gypsum
fibreboard drylining will fireproof the house, it is also similar to MDF and
you can hang cupboards on it directly. It is also pre-finished so no
plasterers or drying out and cracks and all that crap.
> Take a close look at the fine detailing
> of a timber frame construction drawing,
> particularly the amount of expansion joints
> which have to be built in to account for
> movement.
See above, re: "I" beams.
> Similarly, every corner and opening has to
> be firestopped to prevent the passage of
> smoke/flame in the event of a fire. It should
> work OK if the builder does his job properly
> - but there is a lot of fiddly detailing to get
> right and as you yourself say -
The new regs are to have every house having an air-tight test. So the level
of detail is the same for brick and block and timber frame. About time too!
Using Warmcell cellulose sprayed in insulation in the walls and roof spaces,
all the air gaps will be sealed up.
> there's a lot of cowboys out there.
You said it.
> A cavity wall is a doddle by
> comparison.
Not if you want heavy insulation and run HVAC ducting its not.
> >So an advantage!!! Cost, and speed,
> >a hell of an advantage.
>
> A couple of weeks and a few grand here
> and there - over your lifetime and the
> lifetime of the building amounts to bugger all.
>
> >> A brick / block house is just as quick but
> >> prone to delays from the weather.
A brick and block is NOT quicker assuming the same level of project
management.
> Timber frame is fine if that's what you
> choose to use, but don't let yourself be
> sold the concept based on spurious
> advice.
I'm fully aware of brick and block and timber frame, I'm sure I've educated
you a little on it.
> A timber frame might *just* edge it
> in terms of cost and price - but not by
> any great amount. Not enough for
> you to completely overlook a traditional
> cavity building.
I have fully looked into both and rejected brick and block on many grounds
in favour of timber. Superinsulating a house with brick and block is "very"
expensive, whereas with timber it cost little extra at all. The extra cost
of the insulation is off-set by the saving in not having a heating system.
No heating will save about £800-£1,000 a year in heating bills.
Timber frame is the only way to go for most houses as it outperforms brick
and block in most aspects. Brick and block is 1950s methods. Also a
competent person may do the drylining, electrical, pipework, ducting and
other aspects, which will make it even cheaper again.
You totally ignore my figures for timber homes in the USA, which don't have
any of the problems you are on about. Then there is the environmental
impact of promoting timber forests and reducing polluting cement and brick
industries, and burning a minimum amount of fossil fuel to heat he house
further reducing pollution. Multiplied all over the country it will make
one hell of an impact.
> (Professional advice! The invoice is in the post..............)
Thanks for your concern, appreciated. But I'm sure you grasped that I know
"exactly" what I am on about". See:
http://users.powernet.co.uk/wssbt/index.htm
For the Segal method (which I am not adpopting).
http://www.hufhaus.de/
For Huf Hause. A German maker who make exceptional high quality homes, to
your design. They sell in the UK now.
http://www.liquefaction.com/berm.htm
http://www.terra-dome.com/
If you are really green, earth shelters.
News
> the comment was that brick was
> superior ot timberframe,
Why didn't you say that!!!! There was lots of comment in the post you
answered to. You are obviously not very bright. Be specific, but I think
that too much to ask from someone with a glaringly wandering mind.
> the resrponse was that my families
> home in yarrow feus is timeber and
> only five hundred years old, no wonder
> you are so confused by reality
My idea of reality is on planet earth. Not your planet.
News
typo. Should be:
Your response in castigating timber frame was poor.
apologies
Vaughan James Sanders
freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> > Brick & block is not much cheaper. Timber
>> > frame is slightly cheaper and of
>> > superior insulation.
>>
>> All houses have to meet standards of insulation
>> set down by the Building Standards - specifically,
>> walls must meet a U-value of 0.45 W/m2 deg C.
>> Which is to say a brick/block wall will have the same
>> level of "warmth" as a timber frame wall.
>
>Clarification. The hollow walls of timber framed houses may be filled with
>thick insulation which will far exceed what brick and block can offer. The
>internal walls and floors may be filled with sound insulating materials.
>Using spaced studs you can eliminate thermal and sound bridging in timber
>frame. You can't do that easily with brick and block.
News I expect that even you would realise with out having to read a
book, that 8in insulation will need an 8in stud wall. What's to stop you
using 8in blocks on the internal skin. The cost go up the same for both
methods of construction. BTW to go this far over the top would be a
waist of time and money for our climate IMO.
To meet sound proofing reg's with stud walls as a partition between
dwellings, flats for example. You need two 4in stud walls with an air
gap, 3 skins of plaster board and one of the stud walls filled with
sound proofing, fibreglass for example. An 8in block wall, sand and
cement rendered both sides will win on any criterion you like to put
forward. Incidentally there's nothing to stop you dry lining a block
wall with Gyproc plaster board. IMO the initial cracks that appear in
the drying stage of sand/cement rendering are far out weighed by the
superior strength of this method of construction. A tip here you won't
find in any of your books, use 7 Newton blocks and you'll see hardly any
cracking at all.
You sure you didn't skip a few pages in your books. While I'll agree
with you that Gyproc Is a brilliant fireproofing, you won't hang a
cupboard on it without a stud behind it. MDF is preferred for staircases
for example, because it is more stable than wood. BTW there is a cancer
health scare over breathing in the dust when MDF is cut.
What exact similarity has MDF to Plaster board, apart from being able to
buy it in the same size sheets?
>
>> Take a close look at the fine detailing
>> of a timber frame construction drawing,
>> particularly the amount of expansion joints
>> which have to be built in to account for
>> movement.
>
>See above, re: "I" beams.
>
>> Similarly, every corner and opening has to
>> be firestopped to prevent the passage of
>> smoke/flame in the event of a fire. It should
>> work OK if the builder does his job properly
>> - but there is a lot of fiddly detailing to get
>> right and as you yourself say -
>
News, when you have your insulation in stud walls of your "shed" and
your neat plastic vapour barrier covering it ready for your plaster
board. That's on the off chance that the cowboys you have employed have
fixed it with out tears. Along comes mister sparks and punches holes
through it, for plugs sockets etc. bit of a problem that.
>The new regs are to have every house having an air-tight test. So the level
>of detail is the same for brick and block and timber frame. About time too!
>Using Warmcell cellulose sprayed in insulation in the walls and roof spaces,
>all the air gaps will be sealed up.
Hmm, this air test going to be a bit of a problem for you, especially if
you want an open fire to burn some of this wood your going to plant all
over the place. Your local building inspector is going to insist you put
vents in, either through the wall or ducted in the floor.
What's this house your building to be called "Buckingham Palace". My
place is 2500 sq. ft. poorly insulated by today's standard. i.e. open
cavity, 4in loft insulation, single glazed real lead lights and the
heating bill is about half that you quote.
>
>Timber frame is the only way to go for most houses as it outperforms brick
>and block in most aspects. Brick and block is 1950s methods. Also a
>competent person may do the drylining, electrical, pipework, ducting and
>other aspects, which will make it even cheaper again.
>
>You totally ignore my figures for timber homes in the USA, which don't have
>any of the problems you are on about. Then there is the environmental
>impact of promoting timber forests and reducing polluting cement and brick
>industries, and burning a minimum amount of fossil fuel to heat he house
>further reducing pollution. Multiplied all over the country it will make
>one hell of an impact.
Have you noticed that the country's you quote, apart from having an
abundance of timber, have pretty severe winters. All wet trades stop
when the temperature falls below 36f, don't you think this might offer a
slight clue.
>> (Professional advice! The invoice is in the post..............)
>
>Thanks for your concern, appreciated. But I'm sure you grasped that I know
>"exactly" what I am on about". See:
Yeah, if you were an architect news, you would be right up there with
the best. You know the ones prince Charlie boy said had done more damage
than the Lufftwaffer.
>http://users.powernet.co.uk/wssbt/index.htm
>For the Segal method (which I am not adpopting).
>
>http://www.hufhaus.de/
>For Huf Hause. A German maker who make exceptional high quality homes, to
>your design. They sell in the UK now.
>
>http://www.liquefaction.com/berm.htm
>http://www.terra-dome.com/
>If you are really green, earth shelters.
>
>
>
>
News
> > may be filled with thick insulation which will far exceed
> > what brick and block can offer. The internal walls and
> > floors may be filled with sound insulating materials.
> > Using spaced studs you can eliminate thermal and
> > sound bridging in timber frame. You can't do that
> > easily with brick and block.
>
> News I expect that even you would realise
> with out having to read a book, that 8in insulation
> will need an 8in stud wall. What's to stop you
> using 8in blocks on the internal skin.
An 8 inch (200mm) stud wall filled with cellulose spayed in insulation will
far exceed an 8 inch block wall. The difference so great it is stunning;
the lower levels of superinsulation.
> The cost go up the same for both
> methods of construction. BTW to
> go this far over the top would be a
> waist of time and money for our
> climate IMO.
You obviously don't understand superinsulation. In our cold climate it
should be the norm.
> To meet sound proofing reg's with stud walls
> as a partition between dwellings, flats for example.
> You need two 4in stud walls with an air
> gap, .....
I'm not building flats. A detached house.
> there's nothing to stop you dry lining a block
> wall with Gyproc plaster board.
To do that woudl be foolish as you insulate the house from the thermal mass
of the concrete blocks. If mass is there use it.
> > In Sweden, timber houses have a lower insurance
> > premium. Wood burns at a set rate, so they can
> > determine the rate of fire for escape. Using gypsum
> > fibreboard drylining will fireproof the house, it is
> > also similar to MDF and you can hang cupboards
> > on it directly. It is also pre-finished so no
> > plasterers or drying out and cracks and all that crap.
>
> You sure you didn't skip a few pages in your books.
> While I'll agree with you that Gyproc Is a brilliant
> fireproofing, you won't hang a cupboard on it without
> a stud behind it.
You didn't read properly, I said "Gypsum Fibreboard's". I also said "it is
also similar to MDF and you can hang cupboards on it directly. It is also
pre-finished so no plasterers or drying out and cracks and all that crap".
A German company called Fels who make Fermacell drylining. I have used it
is it brilliant. Your knowledge of construction is 1950s British - useless.
As I say, you should read some books on new methods and materials and one on
superinsulation which you know "nothing" about. Your knowledge of
environmental methods and materials is poor too. We are approaching 2000,
it is not 1953. The world has moved on, even in building.
> MDF is preferred for staircases
> for example, because it is more stable
> than wood. BTW there is a cancer
> health scare over breathing in the dust
> when MDF is cut. What exact similarity
> has MDF to Plaster board, apart from being
> able to buy it in the same size sheets?
MDF contains 14% glues. It is banned in the USA for "on-site" cutting. A
German company makes a non-toxic version (expensive). See above about
Fermacell. Do some research Telephone Fels, tel No: 0121 321 1155.
A timber house using "I" beams, superinsulation and Fermacell drylining will
be as sold as a brick and block house. You won't notice the difference,
except in that the heating bills be virtually non-existent.
> >> Similarly, every corner and opening has to
> >> be firestopped to prevent the passage of
> >> smoke/flame in the event of a fire. It should
> >> work OK if the builder does his job properly
> >> - but there is a lot of fiddly detailing to get
> >> right and as you yourself say -
>
> News, when you have your insulation in stud
> walls of your "shed" and your neat plastic vapour
> barrier covering it ready for your plaster
> board. That's on the off chance that the cowboys
> you have employed have fixed it with out tears.
The odd tear is OK, and it can be taped. If the do tear it they pay - it is
called project management. You can also have the walls made of pre-made
panels which slot into place - simple.
> Along comes mister sparks and
> punches holes through it, for plugs
> sockets etc. bit of a problem that.
You have a 25mm service duct behind. There are many methods of high
insulation timber walls. You keep an eye on the tradesmen, and brief them
in advance what the house is about and what they can or can't do. If they
screw up or ignore you, you sack them.
> >The new regs are to have every house having an
> >air-tight test. So the level of detail is the same for
> >brick and block and timber frame. About time too!
> >Using Warmcell cellulose sprayed in insulation in
> >the walls and roof spaces, all the air gaps will
> >be sealed up.
>
> Hmm, this air test going to be a bit of
> a problem for you, especially if
> you want an open fire to burn some of
> this wood your going to plant all
> over the place.
No open fire. And air-this test is easy; you block the chimney.
> > Your local building inspector is going to
> > insist you put vents in, either through the
> > wall or ducted in the floor.
Or mechanical heat recovery vent systems.
> > I have fully looked into both and rejected
> > brick and block on many grounds
> > in favour of timber. Superinsulating a house
> > with brick and block is "very" expensive,
> > whereas with timber it cost little extra at all.
> > The extra cost of the insulation is off-set
> > by the saving in not having a heating system.
> > No heating will save about £800-£1,000 a
> > year in heating bills.
>
> What's this house your building to be
> called "Buckingham Palace".
No. Buck House is poorly designed and built.
> My place is 2500 sq. ft. poorly insulated
> by today's standard. i.e. open cavity,
> 4in loft insulation, single glazed real lead
> lights and the heating bill is about half that
> you quote.
Do you use oil?
> > Timber frame is the only way to go for
> > most houses as it outperforms brick
> > and block in most aspects. Brick and
> > block is 1950s methods. Also a
> > competent person may do the drylining,
> > electrical, pipework, ducting and
> > other aspects, which will make it even
> > cheaper again.
> >
> > You totally ignore my figures for timber
> > homes in the USA, which don't have
> > any of the problems you are on about.
> > Then there is the environmental
> > impact of promoting timber forests and
> > reducing polluting cement and brick
> > industries, and burning a minimum amount
> > of fossil fuel to heat he house further
> > reducing pollution. Multiplied all over the
> > country it will make one hell of an impact.
>
> Have you noticed that the country's you
> quote, apart from having an abundance
> of timber, have pretty severe winters. All
> wet trades stop when the temperature falls
> below 36f, don't you think this might offer a
> slight clue.
No not at all. They go for timber as it is far superior insulant. We built
in timber until it ran out. Then we had to revert to masonry
> >> (Professional advice! The invoice is in the post..............)
> >
> > Thanks for your concern, appreciated. But I'm
> > sure you grasped that I know "exactly" what I
> > am on about". See:
>
> Yeah, if you were an architect news, you
> would be right up there with the best. You
> know the ones prince Charlie boy said had
> done more damage than the Lufftwaffer.
Those were the ones who built in primarily concrete and masonry, I advocate
timber. Timber has now been cleared for buildings up to 8 floors high -
there are 5 floor examples in the London. All Travel Lodges are timber
framed.
I'm very serious. If you are a professional in the building game, your
knowledge is way behind current methods and materials being used in Germany,
Scandinavia and north America. Do some research.
News
> >> set down by the Building Standards - specifically,
> >> walls must meet a U-value of 0.45 W/m2 deg C.
> >> Which is to say a brick/block wall will have the same
> >> level of "warmth" as a timber frame wall.
> >
> > Clarification. The hollow walls of timber framed
> > houses may be filled with thick insulation which will
> > far exceed what brick and block can offer. The
> > internal walls and floors may be filled with sound
> > insulating materials. Using spaced studs you can
> > eliminate thermal and sound bridging in timber
> > frame. You can't do that easily with brick and block.
>
Not easily you can't. What is it, when the cavity get wider than 250 or
300mm, support pillars have to be installed? Brick and block can't compete
with timber in this sense.
Thermal and sound bridging is difficult with brick and block, very difficult
and expensive.
> >> > A cheap timber frame method pioneered
> >> > in the UK, and been around for 40 years,
> >> > is the Segal method; well respected. Timber
> >> > frame kit companies will design a house for
> >> > you, make it in a factory to exacting
> >> > standards and assemble the house on site
> >> > in 4 days.
> >>
> >> Timber frames are made up on jigs laid on
> >> the ground and put together like an Airfix
> >> model - as soon as you alter it costs money to
> >> change - a price which gets passed on to you.
> >
> > Design! Know what you want up front, don't
> > muddle through. Later, timber frames can just
> > as easily be extended as brick and block.
>
> You should design what you want first; then,
> you decide the method of
> construction to suit your design.
That's quite obvious. If it is a high;ly insulated house timber comes to
the fore. If it is environmental grounds, timber yet again comes to the
fore.
> >> >You run bricks up the
> >> >outside to make it look traditional
> >> > if you want.
> >>
> >> Which is what people normally do -so instead
> >> of 2 leaves of brick, you have one, so erection
> >> times of timber frame is not necessarily *much*
> >> quicker because you have to build a leaf of
> >> brick as well. Timber frame manufacturers argue
> >> that you get the roof on quicker with timber
> >> frame and so allow the other trades into the
> >> house quicker. I'd guess it's in the region of
> >> about 1- 2 weeks quicker - great for volume
> >> house builders, but for a one- off house?
> >
> > It is quicker and you can work in the winter.
> > If you arrange to have the roofers on site a
> > day or two after the frame erection there is a dry
> > workspace under. If you arrange to have the
> > bricklayers run the cladding up at the same
> > time, from a concrete pad to walls and roof
> > could be 2 to 3 weeks. Using gypsum fibreboard
> > drylining, stapling to the timber studs the
> > internal walls may up in no time at all. Gypsum
> > fibreboard's add rigidity to a house.
>
> This is what I said. Timber frame is slightly
> quicker
A lot quicker. Especially if you manage the build so that all the trades
mesh into each other. No comparison.
> - but you are not listening to what
> I am saying....
I am. And I have heard it all before, and assessed it all before.
> I'm saying that you have to offset the slight
> time advantage against
Slight time advantage? see above.
> the lifespan of the house. Ask yourself
> if it is worth it when a traditional cavity wall is
> simpler to build and much more robust.
"Traditional" houses in this country were always "timber". Brick and
block, in comparison is new, mainly introduced by the early Victorians. As
I have said to you, some of the oldest buildings in England are wood.
Modern softwoods are treated. It is not simpler to build a brick and block
cavity wall, that is cobblers. And it is not much more robust. Stud
walling, or better still composite "I" beams, with rigid gypsum fibreboard's
(similar to Fermacel; do you know what I am on about here?) is equally as
robust to brick and block.
> >> What's two weeks when you could have
> >> your own made to measure house designed
> >> for you.
> >
> > If the project is run properly a timber framed
> > house will be far quicker to build than brick and
> > block - a fact!!!! A timber famed house can be
> > of any design you want. You don't have to
> > take an off-the-shelf design.
>
> That is what I am saying - if you are going to build
> a one-off design, any time/cost advantages of timber
> frame are negligible.
Even if it is negligible, the construction and insulation is vastly
superior - not to mention the minimal environmental effect.
> The frame gets fabricated and erected and the outer
> leaf of brick built in much the same time as it takes
> to build 2 leaves of brick. Slightly quicker, but only
> negligibly so.
Depends on the management and meshing in the trades - see above.
> >> The comparison is like a ready made
> >> suit vs. an off the shelf one from
> >> Debenhams.
> >
> >Not at all!!!!
>
> Yes at all.
Absolute bollocks!
> >> If you are spending (whatever)
> >> 100-200K on a new house why
> >> settle for a kit which won't fit you
> >> and isn't hugely cheaper.
> >
> > They are cheaper, and faster in build
> > and can be designed to your own
> > design.
> >
> >> ...and if it rains for 2 weeks when the
> >> frame is up and before the roof is on,
> >> the outer leaf built and the building
> >> paper membrane fixed?
> >
> > You don't allow the frame to go up until
> > you are sure the roofers are fully
> > booked.
>
> What colour is the sky in your world?
Not the pink one you see.
> > The wood in the fame's are treated so
> > getting wet for a week or two
> > doesn't make any difference. Exactly the
> > same can apply to brick and block
> > with floor and roof timbers.
>
> True - but the same happens to the roof and
> floor timbers of a timber frame house *and*
> to the walls which are holding them up.
So?
> >> Timber warps. It also burns.
> >
> >> Similarly, every corner and opening has to
> >> be firestopped to prevent the passage of
> >> smoke/flame in the event of a fire. It should
> >> work OK if the builder does his job properly
> >> - but there is a lot of fiddly detailing to get
> >> right and as you yourself say -
> >
> > The new regs are to have every house having an
> > air-tight test. So the level of detail is the same for
> > brick and block and timber frame. About time too!
> > Using Warmcell cellulose sprayed in insulation in the
> > walls and roof spaces, all the air gaps will be sealed up.
>
> Don't use sprayed insulation -use mineral wool or polystyrene.
Why?
> >> Timber frame is fine if that's what you
> >> choose to use, but don't let yourself be
> >> sold the concept based on spurious
> >> advice.
> >
> > I'm fully aware of brick and block and timber
> > frame, I'm sure I've educated
> > you a little on it.
>
> You have a very high opinion of yourself.
Based on knowledge. You have not given one firm point in favour of brick
and block. Any you have given I have countered.
> >> A timber frame might *just* edge it
> >> in terms of cost and price - but not by
> >> any great amount. Not enough for
> >> you to completely overlook a traditional
> >> cavity building.
> >
> > I have fully looked into both and rejected
> > brick and block on many grounds in favour
> > of timber. Superinsulating a house with brick
> > and block is "very" expensive, whereas with
> > timber it cost little extra at all. The extra cost
> > of the insulation is off-set by the saving in not
> > having a heating system. No heating will save
> > about £800-£1,000 a year in heating bills.
>
> You are completely missing the point.
Enlighten me.
> You will enquire the same level of insulation
> in a timber frame house as you would in a
> cavity wall house to achieve a given U-value.
That's obvious.
> There is *no* marked insulation advantage
> in a timber frame. High insulation levels is
> almost totally dependent on the amount of
> insulant that you choose to employ, not the
> method of construction..
You still haven't got it. Insulation is relatively cheap. The cost is
also off-set by eliminating a heating system when going to superinsulation
levels. It is not the cost of the insulation that is the problem it is the
structures that hold it. Timber framed building with their hollow walls
which can have spaced studs (eliminates thermal bridging), or better,
composite "I" beams, can hold the high levels of insulation with too much
fuss. With brick and block it is difficult, and expensive, to build
structures that can hold thick insulation. Also timber in itself is a good
insulant.
> > You totally ignore my figures for timber
> > homes in the USA, which don't have
> > any of the problems you are on about.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't know enough about
> the housing market in the USA to comment.
You are in the UK, which is in the Ice age when it comes to construction
methods and materials.
> I do know that the Scandinavians, (who have
> *always* built in wood as opposed to the
> stone/brick tradition here)
That word again "tradition". Traditional construction in the UK is timber,
it is only way within the past 200 years we have turned to masonry.
> have a quite different construction philosophy
> to Britain.
A better one too. They use common sense and have also pioneered advanced
techniques; even the aerated blocks you use came from Sweden.
> They tend to let a building and it's
> components "breathe" whilst the tendency
> here is to seal everything i.e around baths
> etc. They accept that a bathroom will get
> wet and let it dry out whilst we try to keep
> water out and splodge mastic everywhere.
> If you opt for a Scandinavian house
> make sure that you build as they build -
> the worst thing you can do is
> mix and match construction techniques.
I prefer their methods. The British are in the Ice age when it comes to
construction methods and materials.
Nice speaking to you. :-)
Vaughan James Sanders
.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> the lifespan of the house. Ask yourself
>> if it is worth it when a traditional cavity wall is
>> simpler to build and much more robust.
>
>"Traditional" houses in this country were always "timber". Brick and
>block, in comparison is new, mainly introduced by the early Victorians. As
>I have said to you, some of the oldest buildings in England are wood.
>Modern softwoods are treated. It is not simpler to build a brick and block
>cavity wall, that is cobblers. And it is not much more robust. Stud
>walling, or better still composite "I" beams, with rigid gypsum fibreboard's
>(similar to Fermacel; do you know what I am on about here?) is equally as
>robust to brick and block.
News, there's timber and there's timber, an oak framed house is an
entirely deferent construction to a modern timber framed house anyway.
Incidentally if you tried to build with this method now you would have
to do it in steel.
Vaughan James Sanders
.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>You didn't read properly, I said "Gypsum Fibreboard's". I also said "it is
>also similar to MDF and you can hang cupboards on it directly. It is also
>pre-finished so no plasterers or drying out and cracks and all that crap".
>A German company called Fels who make Fermacell drylining. I have used it
>is it brilliant. Your knowledge of construction is 1950s British - useless.
>As I say, you should read some books on new methods and materials and one on
>superinsulation which you know "nothing" about. Your knowledge of
>environmental methods and materials is poor too. We are approaching 2000,
>it is not 1953. The world has moved on, even in building.
News, all the system building that took place in the 60's mostly ended
in failure, often with the people stuck with these houses left with huge
repair bills. Experience has taught me, you stick to tried and tested
methods unless you know something is better, someone telling you it's
better is not necessarily so in my experience.
>
>> News, when you have your insulation in stud
>> walls of your "shed" and your neat plastic vapour
>> barrier covering it ready for your plaster
>> board. That's on the off chance that the cowboys
>> you have employed have fixed it with out tears.
>
>The odd tear is OK, and it can be taped. If the do tear it they pay - it is
>called project management. You can also have the walls made of pre-made
>panels which slot into place - simple.
>
>> Along comes mister sparks and
>> punches holes through it, for plugs
>> sockets etc. bit of a problem that.
>
>You have a 25mm service duct behind. There are many methods of high
>insulation timber walls. You keep an eye on the tradesmen, and brief them
>in advance what the house is about and what they can or can't do. If they
>screw up or ignore you, you sack them.
I thought we were trying to compete on cost here, more timber on every
stud, double boarded in every duct presumably, or are they going to clip
their wires to the plastic, you know, the plastic that if they tear it
you are going to sack them for.
>
>> >The new regs are to have every house having an
>> >air-tight test. So the level of detail is the same for
>> >brick and block and timber frame. About time too!
>> >Using Warmcell cellulose sprayed in insulation in
>> >the walls and roof spaces, all the air gaps will
>> >be sealed up.
>>
>> Hmm, this air test going to be a bit of
>> a problem for you, especially if
>> you want an open fire to burn some of
>> this wood your going to plant all
>> over the place.
>
>No open fire. And air-this test is easy; you block the chimney.
>
>> > Your local building inspector is going to
>> > insist you put vents in, either through the
>> > wall or ducted in the floor.
>
>Or mechanical heat recovery vent systems.
I'm intrigued to know who's designing the air-lock for the front
entrance. All this free heat will be gone in seconds when the milk man
knocks for his money.
>> > Timber frame is the only way to go for
>> > most houses as it outperforms brick
>> > and block in most aspects. Brick and
>> > block is 1950s methods. Also a
>> > competent person may do the drylining,
>> > electrical, pipework, ducting and
>> > other aspects, which will make it even
>> > cheaper again.
You've got me baffled with this bit.
>I'm very serious. If you are a professional in the building game, your
>knowledge is way behind current methods and materials being used in Germany,
>Scandinavia and north America. Do some research.
>
News, we're talking about building in the UK with it's own specific
problems, which vary from one part of the country to another anyway.
Better insulation is good, but not when it means compromising structural
integrity. Certainly not when there is no difference in insulation and
the structurally superior brick/block is cheaper.
BTW check out the construction methods in the Austrian mountains.
News
> > always "timber". Brick and block, in
> > comparison is new, mainly introduced by
> > the early Victorians. As I have said to
> > you, some of the oldest buildings in England
> > are wood. Modern softwoods are treated.
> > It is not simpler to build a brick and block
> > cavity wall, that is cobblers. And it is not
> > much more robust. Stud walling, or better
> > still composite "I" beams, with rigid gypsum
> > fibreboard's (similar to Fermacel; do you
> > know what I am on about here?) is equally as
> > robust to brick and block.
>
> oak framed house is an entirely deferent
> construction to a modern timber framed
> house anyway. Incidentally if you tried to
> build with this method now you would have
> to do it in steel.
Jamie,
I'm fully aware of green oak framed buildings and there are few companies
doing them - not an ounce of metal in the frame construction. With time the
frame shrinks and the wood hardens and it is the strength of tensile steel -
not bad for a Middle ages development was it. Treated softwoods build
correctly will last a good 100 years, and more. Many floors and roof
timbers of softwood are still intact and going strong in millions of very
old houses in the UK right now. My floor is 100 years old and there is
nothing wrong with that. The part of the house that more open to the
elements is the roof timbers and they do not suffer - or very rarely. So
why should a whole house of timber be any different? Answer: it isn't any
different.
Softwood stick framed house were pioneered in Chicago. Chicago is full of
them after over 100 years.
News
> cavity wall. 250mm cavity
> wall, then as much insulation as you wish.
There is a limit to the width of the cavity, then wall support pillars have
to be introduced. Superinsulation is minimum 250mm of insulation alone -
expensive in brick.
> > A lot quicker. Especially if you manage
> > the build so that all the trades
> > mesh into each other. No comparison.
>
> Have you paid the slightest bit of attention
> to what I have been saying?
Yes, and I have heard that ice age tripe time and time again. What is it?
You can't project manage properly?
> >"Traditional" houses in this country were always
> >"timber". Brick and block, in comparison is new,
> > mainly introduced by the early Victorians. As
> > I have said to you, some of the oldest buildings
> > in England are wood.
>
> I live in Scotland where the tradition is
> of stone.
That's less than 5 million out of 60 million
> >> > The wood in the fame's are treated so
> >> > getting wet for a week or two
> >> > doesn't make any difference. Exactly the
> >> > same can apply to brick and block
> >> > with floor and roof timbers.
> >>
> >> True - but the same happens to the roof and
> >> floor timbers of a timber frame house *and*
> >> to the walls which are holding them up.
> >
> >So?
>
> So what happens to damp wood?
We know what happens to damp wood. You stop it getting damp in the first
place in timber frame or brick and block. Please read and pay attention.
> >> Don't use sprayed insulation -use mineral
> >> wool or polystyrene.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because that is what is used nowadays as insulation.
What a silly answer! How objective. Because all my mates use it must be
the best. My God! Spayed cellulose is superior and the most
environmentally friendly insulation you can have. It also seals up the
nooks and crannies.
> >> You have a very high opinion of yourself.
> >
> >Based on knowledge.
>
> You have a tenuous grasp of construction techniques
> but have obviously done a certain amount of reading
> on timber framed buildings.
I have rubbished all your points condemning timber framed house. I have
slaughtered you.
> >You have not given one firm point in favour of brick
> >and block. Any you have given I have countered.
>
> I have countered everything you have tried to say.
> Your method of debating seems to rely on ignoring
> everything people say to you and
> repeating your own argument ad nauseum.
I countered everything you have said.
Either:
1) You castigate timber framed houses as the frame makes make a huge chunk
of profit that would go to you (assuming you are a builder), if you used
ice-age brick and block. I can understand this to a degree as you after
money.
Or
2) You are a member of the Flat Earth Society.
PS
Get some of those books I emailed to you. - I'm serious.
Vaughan James Sanders
freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> News, there's timber and there's timber, an
>> oak framed house is an entirely deferent
>> construction to a modern timber framed
>> house anyway. Incidentally if you tried to
>> build with this method now you would have
>> to do it in steel.
>
>Jamie,
>
>I'm fully aware of green oak framed buildings and there are few companies
>doing them - not an ounce of metal in the frame construction. With time the
>frame shrinks and the wood hardens and it is the strength of tensile steel -
>not bad for a Middle ages development was it. Treated softwoods build
>correctly will last a good 100 years, and more. Many floors and roof
>timbers of softwood are still intact and going strong in millions of very
>old houses in the UK right now. My floor is 100 years old and there is
>nothing wrong with that. The part of the house that more open to the
>elements is the roof timbers and they do not suffer - or very rarely. So
>why should a whole house of timber be any different? Answer: it isn't any
>different.
>
>Softwood stick framed house were pioneered in Chicago. Chicago is full of
>them after over 100 years.
>
>
>
ago we had to repair a five hundred year old oak framed coach house that
had suffered a fire. The roof and main roof beams had gone but the wall
frames and brickwork panels were still intact. Being a listed building
it had to be restored as near original as possible. The main roof beams
had to go back in steel as oak can't be calculated.
Your timber frame is more like the weatherboarded, hollow wall, lave and
plaster shacks that were put up in the plot-lands of Essex after the
first world war. Hollow walls are home from home for mice, rats and all
number of creepy crawlies, that used to infest these properties.
So about the only benefit of a timber frame over brick/block that I can
think of, is that it will keep your cats occupied.
News
> place in the 60's mostly ended in failure,
Who is on about system building. Timber framed house are all over the world
and work well - 4 million each year in the USA alone. There is nothing
wrong with system building anyway. In the 1960s they did not take into
account thermal and sound insulation levels and the sealing of the panels of
system building - hence the massive failures.
> often with the people stuck with these houses
> left with huge repair bills. Experience has
> taught me, you stick to tried and tested
> methods unless you know something is better,
> someone telling you it's better is not necessarily
> so in my experience.
Timber frame is tried and tested - the people in Scandinavia, the USA,
Canada and Germany don't know what they are doing? Get out the ice age!
BTW, your response was to Fermacell rigid drylining.
> > You have a 25mm service duct behind. There are
> > many methods of high insulation timber walls.
> > You keep an eye on the tradesmen, and brief them
> > in advance what the house is about and what they
> > can or can't do. If they screw up or ignore you, you
> > sack them.
>
> I thought we were trying to compete on cost here,
Yes! And timber is cheaper.
> more timber on every stud, double boarded
> in every duct presumably, or are they going to
> clip their wires to the plastic, you know, the
> plastic that if they tear it you are going to sack
> them for.
Any bodger gets sacked, in any industry. Wires are not clipped to plastic
vapour barriers. Some breathing walls do not have plastic vapour barriers.
> >Or mechanical heat recovery vent systems.
>
> I'm intrigued to know who's designing the
> air-lock for the front entrance. All this free
> heat will be gone in seconds when the milk man
> knocks for his money.
You install porches were one door has to be closed before the other is
opened - easy, obvious.
> >> > Timber frame is the only way to go for
> >> > most houses as it outperforms brick
> >> > and block in most aspects. Brick and
> >> > block is 1950s methods. Also a
> >> > competent person may do the drylining,
> >> > electrical, pipework, ducting and
> >> > other aspects, which will make it even
> >> > cheaper again.
>
> You've got me baffled with this bit.
Why? If a person is building his own home he can do much of the work
himself and save many. many 1000s of pounds. Selfbuild is approx 10% of all
houses in the UK and rising - about 60% in the rest of Europe. Timber
outperforms brick and block in insulation levels that is clear. To reach
the same standards in brick and block you have to spend much more.
> > I'm very serious. If you are a professional in
> > the building game, your knowledge is way
> > behind current methods and materials being
> > used in Germany, Scandinavia and north
> > America. Do some research.
>
> News, we're talking about building in the UK
> with it's own specific problems, which vary from
> one part of the country to another anyway.
All the USA uses timber frame from deserts to damp UK type of weather and
climates in the north west to permanently below freezing in winter in north
central. What's so different to the UK? Answer: Nothing!
> Better insulation is good, but not when it means
> compromising structural integrity.
Who is talking about compromising structural integrity? I'm not. Timber is
as structurally sound as any brick and block house.
> Certainly not when there is no difference in
> insulation and the structurally superior
> brick/block is cheaper.
As said, timber is not structurally inferior.
> BTW check out the construction methods
> in the Austrian mountains.
BTW, check out the construction methods of Scandinavia, the USA, Canada and
Germany. That's a total population approaching 400 million people.
Please read some of the books I emailed to you.
BTW, not once have you mentioned environmental concerns. If the UK grew all
its own timber and reverted back to timber framed houses we would be a lot:
* Richer.
* Healthier as growing trees give off oxygen.
* More employment.
* healthier in that cement works consume lots of energy and heavily pollute
The UK should do this ASAP.
News
> >in Chicago. Chicago is full of them after over
> >100 years.
>
> News, I fully agree with you that oak is wonderful material.
> main roof beams had to go back in steel as oak can't
> be calculated.
Green oak can. I assume this because it is being added to.
> Your timber frame is more like the
> weatherboarded, hollow wall, lave and
> plaster shacks that were put up in the
> plot-lands of Essex after the first world
> war.
They are not! You are in the ice age, like that Scottish person.
> Hollow walls are home from home for
> mice, rats and all number of creepy
> crawlies, that used to infest these
> properties.
Timber frame house don't have hollow walls. the walls are filled with
insulation, in effect making them solid. Insects don't like the timber
treatment anyway.
Jamie,
You are another Flat Earth Society member! Read the books I emailed to you.
You really need to do some research.
red
> Which is better than what we have now.
Not to someone hwho has none
News
> >> cavity wall. 250mm cavity
> >> wall, then as much insulation as you wish.
> >
> > There is a limit to the width of the cavity,
> > Superinsulation is minimum 250mm of insulation
> > alone - expensive in brick.
>
> You first build a 250mm cavity wall, *then* you
> apply insulation to the inside of the wall - as
> much as you choose. Got it now? The end result
> is an insulated wall which achieves equal
> U-vlaues regardless of whether it
> is timber frame or cavity block/brick. Got it?
Superinsulation starts at 250mm, so the cavity has to be "wider" than 250mm.
300mm min to avoid rain penetration across the cavity - the wider the
better. If you want 300mmm of insulation, then support pillars will be
needed on the outer skin. Simple. 300mm of insulation is a doddle with
timber frames. Spayed-in cellulose gives an even higher insulating factor
as it seals up frame making it air-tight.
> >Yes, and I have heard that ice age tripe
> > time and time again. What is it?
> >You can't project manage properly?
>
> Believe what you choose to believe.
> You are an idiot.
You want to re-read your emails and look at what an idiot I have made you
look. Every castigation of timber I have countered.
> >> >"Traditional" houses in this country were always
> >> >"timber". Brick and block, in comparison is new,
> >> > mainly introduced by the early Victorians. As
> >> > I have said to you, some of the oldest buildings
> >> > in England are wood.
> >>
> >> I live in Scotland where the tradition is
> >> of stone.
> >
> >That's less than 5 million out of 60 million
> >
>
> What a mind blowingly meaningless statement.
You can't understand that. As Scotland has such a small population what
they do is far from being representative of the UK. Got it now! BTW, what
is it? over 60% of new houses in Scotland are timber framed, with about
80% - 90% of selfbuilds timber framed. You are even out of touch with
Scotland.
> >> >> Don't use sprayed insulation -use mineral
> >> >> wool or polystyrene.
> >> >
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> Because that is what is used nowadays
> >> as insulation.
> >
> > What a silly answer! How objective. Because
> > all my mates use it must be the best. My
> > God! Spayed cellulose is superior and the most
> > environmentally friendly insulation you can have.
> > It also seals up the nooks and crannies.
>
> Sure, which doesn't square very well with
> allowing a building to breath does it?
You nothing about "breathing" by that statement. Have you ever heard of the
"breathing wall"? I doubt it. Spayed-in cellulose is incorporated in many
"breathing walls". Do you know what it breathes?
> >> >You have not given one firm point in favour of brick
> >> >and block. Any you have given I have countered.
> >>
> >> I have countered everything you have tried to say.
> >> Your method of debating seems to rely on ignoring
> >> everything people say to you and
> >> repeating your own argument ad nauseum.
> >
> >I countered everything you have said.
> >
> >Either:
> >
> >1) You castigate timber framed houses as the frame makes make a huge
chunk
> >of profit that would go to you (assuming you are a builder), if you used
> >ice-age brick and block. I can understand this to a degree as you after
> >money.
>
> I am an architect. Everything I have said to you is
> sound advice. You on the other hand, are an idiot.
Your advice is BOLLOCKS!!! You don't even know the virtues of timber
framed houses, not only that you know little of their construction, methods
of construction and materials available to use. You know nothing of
ecological building, or choose to ignore it as it was not what they used
when you were a kid.
You are an architect? That figures then. I recently visited a "green"
house designed by an architect - it was plain this guy know f**k all of
passive solar, superinsulation or thermal mass. I emailed all the details
to an American solar consultant friend - the both of us were appalled that
someone could spend so much of someone's money on such a poor design. So
don't try and hide behind the "I'm an architect" bit. Let's face it they
have an appalling reputation of incompetence.
I know a few, unlike yourself, "intelligent" architects that will just laugh
at reading what you have written. You are so out of touch it is
unbelievable. It's near 2000, not 1953.
Or is it this. Most people who go timber frame don't hire an architect.
The timber frame people assist in the design and will provide the drawings
for the planning and build. Eliminates and unnecessary expensive expense.
You are frightened of that aren't you. If you do know the virtues of
timber frame then you do have this anti timber stance out of a monetary
angle.
red
> I do not wish to talk about the USA and all its very serious problems.
> I sometimes feel that the Europeans are a little smarter about social
> things. Seems to me that they don't have a choice. We in the states
> had a short period of time when we were free to use the land as we
> wanted. The Europeans have never had such an opportunity in coincidence
> with or experience with any social order. Like you guys lived in caves
> when land was as abundant as it was here in 200 years ago. That is why
> you are probably more culturally adept at dealing with social issues
> such as crowding and environmental preservation. I am simply trying to
> understand why Europeans would not embrace Henry George Seems to me the
> man was right. A single tax on the value of land as the only means by
> which land tenure can be enforced will allow the _BEST_ use of the
> land. How can you ask for more?
History. You have to remember that a few centuries ago the landed
nobility cleared the crofters and small farmers off the lands,
concentrating them into cities and deporting many to the colonies. In a
very real sense, the British rulking class inflicted on its indiginous
population exactly the same atrocities - house-burings, rape, coercion -
that they later inflicted on their colonial possessions and the
indiginous peoples there. The UK has developed a strong social ethic
that ALL land is common land as a result - as Gerard Winstanley of the
Diggers put it, this England will not be a free land until the common
people have the right to work the common land just as freely as the
lords in their enclosures. I don't think that ANY form of ownership of
land would allow the best use of land; in fact I think it would work
actively against it.
Adam
>
> I know a few, unlike yourself, "intelligent" architects
> that will just laugh at reading what you have written.
> You are so out of touch it is unbelievable. It's near
> 2000, not 1953.
>
> Or is it this. Most people who go timber frame don't
> hire an architect. The timber frame people assist in
> the design and will provide the drawings for the
> planning and build. Eliminates and unnecessary expensive
> expense. You are frightened of that aren't you. If
> you do know the virtues of timber frame then you do
> have this anti timber stance out of a monetary angle.
>
I think the nail was hit on the head. (a timber nail?)
cheers
Vaughan James Sanders
.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> >> > Timber frame is the only way to go for
>> >> > most houses as it outperforms brick
>> >> > and block in most aspects. Brick and
>> >> > block is 1950s methods. Also a
>> >> > competent person may do the drylining,
>> >> > electrical, pipework, ducting and
>> >> > other aspects, which will make it even
>> >> > cheaper again.
>>
>
>Why? If a person is building his own home he can do much of the work
>himself and save many. many 1000s of pounds. Selfbuild is approx 10% of all
>houses in the UK and rising - about 60% in the rest of Europe. Timber
>outperforms brick and block in insulation levels that is clear. To reach
>the same standards in brick and block you have to spend much more.
>
to how the electric's or plumbing are any different.
>> > I'm very serious. If you are a professional in
>> > the building game, your knowledge is way
>> > behind current methods and materials being
>> > used in Germany, Scandinavia and north
>> > America. Do some research.
>>
>> News, we're talking about building in the UK
>> with it's own specific problems, which vary from
>> one part of the country to another anyway.
>
>All the USA uses timber frame from deserts to damp UK type of weather and
>climates in the north west to permanently below freezing in winter in north
>central. What's so different to the UK? Answer: Nothing!
I would get your books out and have a read up if I were you, "heave" in
clay soils would be a good starter. I doubt that there is any where in
North America with a similar climate to here. The gulf stream makes a
huge difference for a start, plus we are a small island with damp salt
air. BTW temperature wise, 60 degrees north (somewhere in Finland) is
the same this side of the Atlantic as 49 degrees north, US / Canadian
border, which lays about due west of lands end.
>
>> Better insulation is good, but not when it means
>> compromising structural integrity.
>
>Who is talking about compromising structural integrity? I'm not. Timber is
>as structurally sound as any brick and block house.
>
>> Certainly not when there is no difference in
>> insulation and the structurally superior
>> brick/block is cheaper.
>
>As said, timber is not structurally inferior.
>
>> BTW check out the construction methods
>> in the Austrian mountains.
>
>BTW, check out the construction methods of Scandinavia, the USA, Canada and
>Germany. That's a total population approaching 400 million people.
>
>Please read some of the books I emailed to you.
>
>BTW, not once have you mentioned environmental concerns. If the UK grew all
>its own timber and reverted back to timber framed houses we would be a lot:
>
>* Richer.
>* Healthier as growing trees give off oxygen.
>* More employment.
>* healthier in that cement works consume lots of energy and heavily pollute
>
>The UK should do this ASAP.
>
>
What evidence do you have that cement causes pollution, cement was
discovered by the Romans wasn't it? lime and volcanic sand I believe.
How environmentally friendly are your chemical wood treatments,
cellulose etc.
Let me see if I have got this environmentally friendly new world order
of yours right. We are going to do away with the green belt and planning
laws, to dot these air tight sheds all over the landscape. Using the
agricultural land that is only spare because the farmers use chemical
farming, i.e. three crops a year instead of the rotational method, three
crops every four years. We are going to build these sheds on the same
land as we need to grow the fast growing soft woods. Wood that will rot
faster than we can grow it unless it is treated with chemicals, or even
worse protected by brickwork using the dreaded cement.
And I'm the member of the flat earth society am I.
As you said yourself 97% of timber is imported, few bricks/blocks are
imported, the light weight blocks are made from waste from the power
stations I believe. Some methods of firing bricks use no power at all,
now there's a super-insulating material for you.
BTW News, as some one who has spent almost 40 years building houses by
both methods, I will agree with you that there is always more than one
way of doing things.
"My way and the wrong way"
Ps I forgot to tell you, when you mentioned Winston Churchill in one of
your posts. Do yourself a favour, take a trip to Chartwell and see some
of the brickwork the great man did himself.
Alan Hardie
> > >> You put the insulation on the inside of the
> > >> cavity wall. 250mm cavity
> > >> wall, then as much insulation as you wish.
> > >
> > > There is a limit to the width of the cavity,
> > > then wall support pillars have to be introduced.
> > > Superinsulation is minimum 250mm of insulation
> > > alone - expensive in brick.
> >
> > <sigh> I'm going to have to explain this slowly.
> > You first build a 250mm cavity wall, *then* you
> > apply insulation to the inside of the wall - as
> > much as you choose. Got it now? The end result
> > is an insulated wall which achieves equal
> > U-vlaues regardless of whether it
> > is timber frame or cavity block/brick. Got it?
>
> Superinsulation starts at 250mm, so the cavity has to be "wider" than
250mm.
<More sighs> 100mm brick, 50mm cavity, 100mm block, 100mm (or 200, 300mm)
insulation *inside* the building. Got it now?
>
> > >Yes, and I have heard that ice age tripe
> > > time and time again. What is it?
> > >You can't project manage properly?
> >
> > Believe what you choose to believe.
> > You are an idiot.
>
> You want to re-read your emails and look at what an idiot I have made you
> look. Every castigation of timber I have countered.
You are an idiot because you haven't even noticed that I have already said
that there is nothing wrong in principle with timber frame. You are an idiot
because I've had to repeat myself about 3 or 4 times and you *still* haven't
grasped that all I doing is offering you up a bit of caution and countering
your wilder claims.
>
> > >> >"Traditional" houses in this country were always
> > >> >"timber". Brick and block, in comparison is new,
> > >> > mainly introduced by the early Victorians. As
> > >> > I have said to you, some of the oldest buildings
> > >> > in England are wood.
> > >>
> > >> I live in Scotland where the tradition is
> > >> of stone.
> > >
> > >That's less than 5 million out of 60 million
> > >
> >
> > What a mind blowingly meaningless statement.
>
> You can't understand that. As Scotland has such a small population what
> they do is far from being representative of the UK. Got it now! BTW,
what
> is it? over 60% of new houses in Scotland are timber framed, with about
> 80% - 90% of selfbuilds timber framed. You are even out of touch with
> Scotland.
I have built timber frame houses in the past and will do so in the future. I
have already pointed out that timber frame suits volume housebuilders for
several reasons - one of which is related to making an extra buck. Same
applies to America incidently - a fact which would lead a wise man to view
timber frame with caution. But you are not a wise man. As to self build, I'd
be surprised if the figure wasn't nearer 100% - many people are taking in by
the marketing ploys of kit manufacturers and believe that housebuilding is
easy. It isn't.
> >
> > Sure, which doesn't square very well with
> > allowing a building to breath does it?
>
> You nothing about "breathing" by that statement. Have you ever heard of
the
> "breathing wall"? I doubt it. Spayed-in cellulose is incorporated in
many
> "breathing walls". Do you know what it breathes?
Haven't a clue. I don't even know what you are trying to say.
> > >I countered everything you have said.
> > >
> > >Either:
> > >
> > >1) You castigate timber framed houses as the frame makes make a huge
> chunk
> > >of profit that would go to you (assuming you are a builder), if you
used
> > >ice-age brick and block. I can understand this to a degree as you
after
> > >money.
> >
> > I am an architect. Everything I have said to you is
> > sound advice. You on the other hand, are an idiot.
>
> Your advice is BOLLOCKS!!! You don't even know the virtues of timber
> framed houses, not only that you know little of their construction,
methods
> of construction and materials available to use. You know nothing of
> ecological building, or choose to ignore it as it was not what they used
> when you were a kid.
See above. I've built timber frame houses in the past and will do so in the
future. I've been merely trying to suggest to you that you should not
dismiss cavity wall construction so easily.
>
> You are an architect? That figures then. <snip>So
> don't try and hide behind the "I'm an architect" bit. Let's face it
they
> have an appalling reputation of incompetence.
Have we? How did you come to this conclusion?
I wasn't trying to hide behind it anyway. I only mentioned it because you
thought I was a builder trying to make a buck. You are too idiotic to notice
that I was actually giving you impartial advice.
>
> I know a few, unlike yourself, "intelligent" architects that will just
laugh
> at reading what you have written. You are so out of touch it is
> unbelievable. It's near 2000, not 1953.
>
> Or is it this. Most people who go timber frame don't hire an architect.
This is bollox, but never mind...you will have to emply an architect in any
event to carry out perioidic inspections and certify the construction at the
insistence of your mortgage lender.
> The timber frame people assist in the design and will provide the drawings
> for the planning and build.
What nice people.
They've got you hook line and sinker haven't they?
News
> > > >> cavity wall. 250mm cavity
> > > >> wall, then as much insulation as you wish.
> > > >
> > > > There is a limit to the width of the cavity,
> > > > then wall support pillars have to be introduced.
> > > > Superinsulation is minimum 250mm of insulation
> > > > alone - expensive in brick.
> > >
> > > <sigh> I'm going to have to explain this slowly.
> > > You first build a 250mm cavity wall, *then* you
> > > apply insulation to the inside of the wall - as
> > > much as you choose. Got it now? The end result
> > > is an insulated wall which achieves equal
> > > U-vlaues regardless of whether it
> > > is timber frame or cavity block/brick. Got it?
> >
> > Superinsulation starts at 250mm, so the cavity
> > has to be "wider" than 250mm.
>
> <More sighs> 100mm brick, 50mm cavity,
> 100mm block, 100mm (or 200, 300mm)
> insulation *inside* the building. Got it now?
<sigh> and this guy is in construction. That is am option - but a dumb one.
The way you described, you have isolated the house from the thermal mass of
the block. If thermal mass is there use it. Dense concrete bocks have a
high admittance, better to insulate "inside" the cavity. Once the cavity
gets too wide support piers have to be introduced to the walls.
> > > >Yes, and I have heard that ice age tripe
> > > > time and time again. What is it?
> > > >You can't project manage properly?
> > >
> > > Believe what you choose to believe.
> > > You are an idiot.
> >
> > You want to re-read your emails and look at what an idiot I have made
you
> > look. Every castigation of timber I have countered.
>
> You are an idiot because you haven't
> even noticed that I have already said
> that there is nothing wrong in principle
> with timber frame.
You came up with every ice age trick in the book to castigate Timber frame.
In principle and practice when using superinsulation it the better option -
especially for a selfbuilder.
> > You can't understand that. As Scotland has such a small
> > population what they do is far from being representative
> > of the UK. Got it now! BTW, what is it? over 60% of
> > new houses in Scotland are timber framed, with about
> > 80% - 90% of selfbuilds timber framed. You are even
> > out of touch with Scotland.
>
> I have built timber frame houses in the past and
> will do so in the future. I have already pointed out
> that timber frame suits volume housebuilders for
> several reasons - one of which is related to making
> an extra buck. Same applies to America incidently
Yet the UK big boys don't use it, do they. A small take up by Bovis, that's
about it. The UK should use timber for all houses - it should be the norm.
If the millions of houses to be soon built are timber and the wood grown in
Scotland and Wales this country would a lot richer and cleaner. It is
obvious what good forests do for the environment, as opposed to energy
consuming (fossil fuel pollution) and harmful plant emissions. We import
97% of out timber right now to the tune of £4-5 billion a year. That
environmental and financial shortfall will drastically increase when the new
houses are built.
> - a fact which would lead a wise man
> to view timber frame with caution.
A wise man assess the materials, techniques and costs. In my situation,
superinsulation and passive solar, timber comes out best. Also in
selfbuilding I can do all the pipework, electric's, HVAC ducting, doors
(maybe windows) and drylining (pre-finished) myself saving a bundle on
outside tradesmen. It all makes sense to go timber. And that is not even
looking at the environmental impact of the imbedded energy of brick and
block which is phenomenal compared to timber.
> But you are not a wise man.
Very wise. Very logical. Saw through you.
> As to self build, I'd be surprised if the figure
> wasn't nearer 100% - many people are taking
> in by the marketing ploys of kit manufacturers
> and believe that housebuilding is easy. It isn't.
Only 1000 timber framed houses a year are built in the UK, with Potton
providing about 400 of them. Look at Pottons reputation and their houses
that have been around a good 20 years. No problem with them; no intestinal
condensation, all well and good. About 12,000 selfbuilds are built in the
UK each year (very low to Europe which is about 60%), amounting to about 10%
of all houses - most are brick and block with appalling insulation standards
compared to Scandinavia, Germany, USA and Canada.
> > > Sure, which doesn't square very well with
> > > allowing a building to breath does it?
> >
> > You nothing about "breathing" by that statement.
> > Have you ever heard of the "breathing wall"? I
> > doubt it. Spayed-in cellulose is incorporated in
> > many "breathing walls". Do you know what it
> > breathes?
>
> Haven't a clue. I don't even know what you are trying to say.
I thought so. The wall breaths "vapour" not air. It allows vapour to
travel from the humid inside to the less humid outside, preventing
condensation. The first book on the list I sent, by Pat Borer, fully
describes this. Brilliant book, in all forms of ecological construction and
materials (brick and block too). All architects should have it.
> See above. I've built timber frame houses
> in the past and will do so in the future. I've
> been merely trying to suggest to you that
> you should not dismiss cavity wall construction
> so easily.
I don't dismiss brick and block, but timber in my situation: superinsulation
(it is not the insulation but the structure to hold it) and passive solar,
timber frame makes the most sense. It may have quite a few hundred foot of
poly pipe under the house and into the garden to use the earthed cooled
water to run through a duct mounted copper cooling battery to cool the
house. All by running a pump and duct fan.
> > You are an architect? That figures then.
>> <snip>
> > So don't try and hide behind the "I'm an
> > architect" bit. Let's face it they
> > have an appalling reputation of
> > incompetence.
>
> Have we? How did you come to this
> conclusion?
Working with some of them on large office conversions in London. I did the
HVAC control system designs. Also I have seen many 1960s building
demolished because of incompetence. Don't give me it was the planners and
contruction companies - you fellows were equally to blame.
> I wasn't trying to hide behind it anyway.
> I only mentioned it because you
> thought I was a builder trying to make a buck.
Same business.
> You are too idiotic to notice
> that I was actually giving you
> impartial advice.
As you have clearly grasped I am far from an idiot, and have taken you a
ride for your money. You started by just castigating timber. Timber is
equal to brick and block in most cases and in many superior.
> > I know a few, unlike yourself, "intelligent" architects
> > that will just laugh at reading what you have written.
> > You are so out of touch it is unbelievable. It's near
> > 2000, not 1953.
> >
> > Or is it this. Most people who go timber frame don't
> > hire an architect.
>
> This is bollox, but never mind...you will have to emply an
> architect in any event to carry out perioidic inspections
> and certify the construction at the insistence of your
> mortgage lender.
The Zurich people do that - if he is an architect then that's their
business. No architect need be involved. Many people just use the timber
frame company to do all of the design and supply all the drawings etc, etc.
They will even give you a turn-key house if you want. Not what I want
though.
> > The timber frame people assist in the design
> > and will provide the drawings
> > for the planning and build.
>
> What nice people.
Showing your prejudices.
> They've got you hook line and sinker
> haven't they?
Only if you want them too. You don't have to take the whole package. I
will go to one and tell them with a design under my arm and tell them what
design "I" want - and what price and deliver please.
Don't knock them. Many provide an excellent service. Just because the
house is from a catalogue, or an amended catalogue version, so what. There
are thousands of people out there living in them and are quite satisfied
with the trimmed design to their in them. The have a house which they could
never afford otherwise, and when they come to sell they find they make a
packet too.
Have a look at this German timber frame company. They have wooden upper
floors with a 70mm cement screed. Superb quality, but expensive. But the
resale values are very high.
Harold
<r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote:
[deleted]
>I don't think that ANY form of ownership of
>land would allow the best use of land; in fact I think it would work
>actively against it.
History has proven you incorrect. Any property, land or otherwise,
owned in common will be abused.
When property rights are clear, people will protect their property
from misuse.
Regards, Harold
-----
"Economic ignorance is the breeding ground of totalitarianism."
---John Jewkes
News
> >> > most houses as it outperforms brick
> >> > and block in most aspects. Brick and
> >> > block is 1950s methods. Also a
> >> > competent person may do the drylining,
> >> > electrical, pipework, ducting and
> >> > other aspects, which will make it even
> >> > cheaper again.
>
It's very simple and clear re-read it.
> >Why? If a person is building his own home he can do much of the work
> >himself and save many. many 1000s of pounds. Selfbuild is approx 10% of
all
> >houses in the UK and rising - about 60% in the rest of Europe. Timber
> >outperforms brick and block in insulation levels that is clear. To reach
> >the same standards in brick and block you have to spend much more.
>
> As your only substituting timber for the blockwork,
> I'm still baffled as to how the electric's or plumbing
> are any different.
Who said electric's and pipes was any different?
> > All the USA uses timber frame from deserts to
> > damp UK type of weather and climates in the
> > north west to permanently below freezing in
> > winter in north central. What's so different
> > to the UK? Answer: Nothing!
>
> I would get your books out and have a read up
> if I were you,
Look up what?
> "heave" in clay soils would be a good starter.
I didn't recommend that.
> I doubt that there is any where in North America
> with a similar climate to here.
You should concentrate and read. I said "to damp UK type of weather and
climates in the north west [of the USA]"
> > BTW, not once have you mentioned environmental
> > concerns. If the UK grew all its own timber and
> > reverted back to timber framed houses we would
> > be a lot:
> >
> > * Richer.
> > * Healthier as growing trees give off oxygen.
> > * More employment.
> > * healthier in that cement works consume lots
> > of energy and heavily pollute
> >
> > The UK should do this ASAP.
>
> What evidence do you have that cement
> causes pollution, cement was discovered
> by the Romans wasn't it? lime and volcanic sand I believe.
You should find out how modern cements are made. They use very high
temperatures to make it. When the government alter WW2 introduced the clean
air act, the cement industry was the largest polluter.
> How environmentally friendly are your
> chemical wood treatments,
> cellulose etc.
Chemical is not friendly, but there are eco substitutes that do the same
job. Cellulose is eco friendly.
> Let me see if I have got this environmentally
> friendly new world order of yours right. We
> are going to do away with the green belt
> and planning laws,
No we are not. I advocate we make land open to market forces by relaxing
planning regs.
> to dot these air tight sheds all over the
> landscape.
Just like the USA, Canada, Scandinavia and Germany - fabulous.
> Using the agricultural land that is only
> spare because the farmers use chemical
> farming, i.e. three crops a year instead
> of the rotational method, three crops every
> four years.
We pay farmers not to produce - to keep the farms idle. The EU is the most
heavily subsidised agriculture in the world.
> We are going to build these sheds
> on the same land as we need to
> grow the fast growing soft woods.
No we grow forests and build houses on open farmland that is sold by the
owners. Simple.
> Wood that will rot faster than
> we can grow it unless it is treated
> with chemicals,
Or organic preservatives, which is better.
> or even worse protected by brickwork
> using the dreaded cement.
>
> And I'm the member of the flat earth society am I.
>
> As you said yourself 97% of timber is imported,
> few bricks/blocks are imported, the light weight
> blocks are made from waste from the power
> stations I believe. Some methods of firing bricks
> use no power at all, now there's a super-insulating
> material for you.
Only if it is very, very thick. Timber costs nothing to make and it gives
of oxygen.
> BTW News, as some one who has spent
> almost 40 years building houses by
> both methods, I will agree with you that
> there is always more than one way of
> doing things. "My way and the wrong
> way"
Wow! So you haven't changed since 1961! That is ice age!
> Ps I forgot to tell you, when you mentioned
> Winston Churchill in one of your posts. Do
> yourself a favour, take a trip to Chartwell and
> see some of the brickwork the great man did
> himself.
I have done. What a wall! Appalling isn't it. He was never a brickie! He
was a better world leader and warmonger that is clear.
Now go and order and read the books. Not only that but read and understand
them.
Vaughan James Sanders
<a*x*har...@clara.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:37:16 -0000, "News"
><evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> <More sighs> 100mm brick, 50mm cavity,
>>> 100mm block, 100mm (or 200, 300mm)
>>> insulation *inside* the building. Got it now?
>>
>><sigh> and this guy is in construction. That is am option - but a dumb one.
>
>membrane stapled to plywood as your inner skin protection against a
>bridged cavity or water penetration of any kind then it is a good
>option.
>
Alan, do you think News has any idea what "Dry Rot" actual is or the
devastation it could cause to a timber frame. Bit of a misleading name
really as damp humid conditions are ideal for it. The question is, for
how long or if at all would any of the timber preservatives that are
mainly a defence against wood worm, be any good against dry rot. In
properties infested with dry rot, pretty powerful chemicals are needed
to treat the brickwork, and any timber that has come into contact with
it is done for.
BTW I was following a Potton wagon the other day, I don't know what
grade timber or preservatives they use but the timber certainly hadn't
been tanalised <s>.
Ps. if News thinks it's only the cowboy builders who bridge cavity's,
the birds will prove him wrong. Starlings are the worst culprits, they
can even lift a tile to get in. Their favoured position is in the eves
right on top of the cavity wall, they've discovered the roof felt mixed
with straw etc. makes a perfect nesting material. Trouble is they
usually strip it right up to the gutter causing a capillary reaction,
their nest then gets wet which they abandon for a new site. First anyone
knows about it is when the rotten facia and soffit falls down. The
internal block wall stops the damp from getting at the roof, not the
case if the internal wall is timber.
News
> >> 100mm block, 100mm (or 200, 300mm)
> >> insulation *inside* the building. Got it now?
> >
> ><sigh> and this guy is in construction. That
>
> No it's not. If you understand the risks inherent
> in relying on a membrane stapled to plywood
> as your inner skin protection against a bridged
> cavity or water penetration of any kind then it
> is a good option.
You would have had a "500mm" superinsulated brick & block wall. That is
ridiculous. If you have a limited size site you will end up with rooms the
size of toilets. With timber frame the depth of the timber wall will hold
the insulation - the insulation is not additional to the wall depth. With
timber frame an exterior water resistant board is fixed on the cavity side -
Bitvent is one. Much neater than brick and block.
> > The way you described, you have isolated the
> > house from the thermal mass of the block. If
> > thermal mass is there use it. Dense concrete
> > bocks have a high admittance, better to insulate
> > "inside" the cavity.
>
> Fair enough, if you are designing a house with it's
> thermal properties solely in mind.
All houses should be designed that way with the climate the UK has!!!!!!
> If you design with buildability and long
> term low maintenance in mind, you would
> not opt for timber frame as a first
> choice.
Bullshit word; "buildability". Timber once constructed has "no"
maintenance. None. No service engineer comes around once a year.
> You would opt for it if you wanted to
> save several hundred quid or,
More like many thousands, quickness in build with many skills so simple a
selbuilder can manage them.
> as in you case a highly thermally insulated
> building. I appreciate what your priorities
> are though - cheapness and low heating
> bills.
No heating bills, if I can. This should be the aim of all architects and
house builders. The building industry has opposed just about every increase
in insulation standards. And what pisses many of us off is that the
government has taken notice of them. Even after the increase in the regs
next year we still have a silly low level of insulation.
> >> I have built timber frame houses in the past and
> >> will do so in the future. I have already pointed out
> >> that timber frame suits volume housebuilders for
> >> several reasons - one of which is related to making
> >> an extra buck. Same applies to America incidently
> >
> > Yet the UK big boys don't use it, do they. A small
> > take up by Bovis, that's about it. The UK should
> > use timber for all houses - it should be the norm.
>
> There is no "should" about it. It's an option - one
> with certain drawbacks - but it's only another option.
And one with certain advantages too. Timber is the "accepted" norm in
Scandinavia, the USA and Canada. The home growing of the timber helps
enormously with their economies too. Something the UK should adopt pronto,
if only for economic reasons. Then their is the environmental reasons of
growing trees giving off oxygen, instead of cement factories producing
pollution and consuming vast amounts of fossil fuel energy.
> >> As to self build, I'd be surprised if the figure
> >> wasn't nearer 100% - many people are taking
> >> in by the marketing ploys of kit manufacturers
> >> and believe that housebuilding is easy. It isn't.
> >
> > Only 1000 timber framed houses a year are
> > built in the UK, with Potton providing about 400
> > of them.
>
> Only 1000 in the UK? The figures given in this
> month's Project Scotland are 60% of all new
> hosing in scotland, 12% of all new housing
> in England.
I stand corrected. I obtained the figures from a construction author. That
is very encouraging and I hope the levels quickly get better. Once the
industry is geared up to timber the price will come down. Skills are easily
learnt and much more of it can be pre-fabricated. Filcrete are making
pre-fabbed superinsulated breathing wall panels to your sizes - too
expensive for the one off selfbuilder just yet. On a job with 50 units the
speed in construction with much tighter tolerances from the ideal factory
conditions of manufacture, will be a great advantage.
> > Look at Pottons reputation and their houses
> > that have been around a good 20 years.
> > No problem with them; no intestinal
> > condensation, all well and good.
>
> Interstitial condensation.
>
> 20 years isn't long enough - and this is one of
> the drawbacks with timber frame - we simply
> don't know enough about their longevity in
> this climate.
Well choose a similar one in the USA & Canada - they have every one you can
think of. Try Washington state, Vancouver or Newfoundland. Mainly timber
frame, and they have no problems. It is simple, just copy what they do.
> > About 12,000 selfbuilds are built in the
> > UK each year (very low to Europe which
> > is about 60%), amounting to about 10%
> > of all houses - most are brick and block
> > with appalling insulation standards
> > compared to Scandinavia, Germany, USA
> > and Canada.
>
> The insulation standards will be the same
> regardless of whether they are built in timber
> frame or brick/block. This is about the 4th time
> I've told you this.
The support structure itself, timber, is a better natural insulant than
brick &n block. And the insulation levels in the UK are pathetic compared
with Scandinavia, Germany, USA and Canada. Ever wondered why these
countries build in timber? I know they have lots of forests, but they make
sure they are maintained and always there.
> If you yourself are designing to standards higher
> than the norm then that is something quite different.
The norm to sensible people is what Scandinavia, Germany, USA and Canada
have. Superinsulation is a misnomer, it should be the norm. One stupid
builder said to me once that people should have the option of high
insulation levels. Well maybe they should have the option of none at all
too.
> > I thought so. The wall breaths "vapour" not
> > air. It allows vapour to travel from the humid
> > inside to the less humid outside, preventing
> > condensation.
>
> This is what causes condensation, not what
> prevents it. Vapour traveling from a warm
> humid inside meets cold less humid outside
> and condenses. Traditionally this is dealt with
> by the use of a vapour barrier, though there
> is still some debate about whether this is a
> good idea. I was referring to natural ventilation
> when I spoke about breathing.
The breathing wall was developed in Germany, and many of them "don't" have a
vapour barrier. However many builders put one anyway just in case. The
vapour travels through the walls, and its insulation, to the outside. As
its travels through its temperature slowly drops so when it meets cold
outside air there is no condensation. It works and many houses are fitted
with them. Spayed-in cellulose is very good for this, making up many of the
components of breathing walls. many brick & block walls don't breath
resulting in mildew. 1.5 million homes in the UK (brick built) suffer from
severe damp and condensation. So brick is no raving long term success.
> >> > The timber frame people assist
> >> > in the design and will provide the
> >> > drawings for the planning and build.
> >>
> >> What nice people.
> >
> > Showing your prejudices.
>
> Damn right.
Thought so. Being done out of work by progressive techniques. Luddite
tendencies.
> >> They've got you hook line and sinker
> >> haven't they?
> >
> > Only if you want them too. You don't have
> > to take the whole package. I will go to one
> > and tell them, with a design under my arm, what
> > design "I" want - and what price and deliver please.
>
> This is where you are confusing yourself. If you buy
> something from kit manufacturer it will only be cheap
> if you buy one of their off the shelf designs - for the
> very same reasons that volume housebuilders use
> timber frame - they use standard jigs to construct
> the frames to identical designs.
Amendable designs.
> Once you vary from that they have to build from
> scratch - and any drawings that they produce
> for Planning or Building Regulations approval
> will have to be drawn from scratch and they will
> charge you.
You can do your own drawings on CAD packages or professional
drawing/graphics packages (Visio is one). I know a few people that have
done this. The timber frame people have to provide the calcs for the frame.
I know some people who have had purpose made designs and they were no more
expensive. The decent timber frame people use CAD packages too. These will
give the precise measurements for the factory to cut. Not rocket science.
Decent software will do all the donkey work. they erect the frame in about
4 days and put a roof on and the the vast majority of the elements are kept
out.
The only way to go.
> If you accept that, then you would
> be as well getting an architect to draw
> up the plans for you
No CAD package. The timber frame people can do all the design you want. A
detached 4 bedroomed house is not that difficult to design - it's no 14
floor block of flats.
> and get a decent builder to
> construct the shell. If they are
> any good you will get excellent
> guidance as you progress.
No. Have the timber frame people erect the frame, manage the build
yourself, use subbies to do the various tasks in hand with attacking the
tasks you can do yourself (given the time of course). I've worked with
builders in the past - they don't have a reputation of being sharks for
nothing.
Vaughan James Sanders
.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>The breathing wall was developed in Germany, and many of them "don't" have a
>vapour barrier. However many builders put one anyway just in case. The
>vapour travels through the walls, and its insulation, to the outside. As
>its travels through its temperature slowly drops so when it meets cold
>outside air there is no condensation. It works and many houses are fitted
>with them. Spayed-in cellulose is very good for this, making up many of the
>components of breathing walls. many brick & block walls don't breath
>resulting in mildew. 1.5 million homes in the UK (brick built) suffer from
>severe damp and condensation. So brick is no raving long term success.
The Roman walls in Colchester would suggest brick is capable of out
lasting soft wood by at least a couple of thousand years.
Not much of a success story I suppose.
News
> > and many of them "don't" have a vapour barrier.
> > However many builders put one anyway just in case.
> > The vapour travels through the walls, and its insulation,
> > to the outside. As its travels through its temperature
> > slowly drops so when it meets cold outside air there
> > is no condensation. It works and many houses are
> > fitted with them. Spayed-in cellulose is very good for
> > this, making up many of the components of breathing
> > walls. many brick & block walls don't breath
> > resulting in mildew. 1.5 million homes in the UK
> > (brick built) suffer from severe damp and condensation.
> > So brick is no raving long term success.
>
> is capable of out lasting soft wood by at least a couple
> of thousand years. Not much of a success story I suppose.
Most of the Roman houses were made of stone not brick. The oldest timber
building in the UK is in Essex which is 11th or 12th century.
You should feel ashamed at your lack of knowledge of modern materials and
techniques. You had never heard of a "breathing wall" before, neither had
the architect. You had never heard of Fermacell either. Do you know what
TJI "I" beam is.
If I want a draughty 1950s house I'll go to you, otherwise I'll still to
real houses.
Vaughan James Sanders
.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> > The breathing wall was developed in Germany,
>> > and many of them "don't" have a vapour barrier.
>> > However many builders put one anyway just in case.
>> > The vapour travels through the walls, and its insulation,
>> > to the outside. As its travels through its temperature
>> > slowly drops so when it meets cold outside air there
>> > is no condensation. It works and many houses are
>> > fitted with them. Spayed-in cellulose is very good for
>> > this, making up many of the components of breathing
>> > walls. many brick & block walls don't breath
>> > resulting in mildew. 1.5 million homes in the UK
>> > (brick built) suffer from severe damp and condensation.
>> > So brick is no raving long term success.
>>
>> is capable of out lasting soft wood by at least a couple
>> of thousand years. Not much of a success story I suppose.
>
>Most of the Roman houses were made of stone not brick. The oldest timber
>building in the UK is in Essex which is 11th or 12th century.
>
after the earthquake. Even worse they must have got crucified for
building the Coliseum in brick. Even worse still the cowboys had the
audacity to sign the bricks with the legions emblem when building
Hadrians wall.
>You should feel ashamed at your lack of knowledge of modern materials and
>techniques. You had never heard of a "breathing wall" before, neither had
>the architect. You had never heard of Fermacell either. Do you know what
>TJI "I" beam is.
Lump of wood not needed in a proper house.
Bob
Adam wrote:
> Excellent! I fully agree. The land ownership and planning problem affects us
> all. It is a major issue that most people are not even aware of. Just look
> at the house people live in Germany, France, and especially the USA and
> Canada. They live in better houses because they don't pay a fortune for
> land, which is freely available.
>
> This issue should be tackled ASAP. If it was it would result in the quality
> of life in the UK rising and industry, via the construction industry (also
> the knock on affect of manufactured goods that supply it) being regenerated.
>
> I may even send a donation to "The Land Is Ours" campaign.
>
> cheers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Adam and All in this thread,
I have just revisited this thread to see how the debate was getting
along, and I have to say I am very impressed with the level of
knowledge on this subject by the contributors. I have certainly learned
a lot about building regs. and trade slang.
In a thread such as this we must beware of the building industry PR
agents, and I think some evidence of them can be detected here, but
you will all make your own judgements on that.
Adam, since I am replying to you, I have to say that the rules in Germany,
US and Canada ( which you cite by way of example) cannot apply here,
simply because we just do not have their areas of land. We are a small
Island and I feel that we *must* protect the oxygen producing green
belt. It is all right to say that the "wind brings in the air" - but it does
not
on a still day - and I would know where I was if I was blindfolded, simply
by breathing, when I come home from the City and get off at Hockley !
I cannot agree with the suggestion that we should allow the building of
yet more "new towns" in the S.E, just to house more unemployed
people. We have the example of Basildon 15 ish miles up the road
from me. It is not a place I would want to live - and most of the people
who do try to move out as soon as they can. Especially the younger
people getting married.
If you build more houses - then you must also build more industry to
give the people who live there jobs. That is an inescapable reality
and a spiral that can only end in mixed urban/industrial sprawl. Just
leaving one area that has been ruined and moving on to another to
do exactly the same thing again is no answer. The answer in a
small island with limited space is regeneration and *recycling* of the
already used land and resources.
The idea of leaving the North of England to sink into permanent decay,
simply on the farcical basis that it is not near enough to Europe, is
simply criminal. Europe only accounts for 8% of our GDP, according to
a paper which has just been sent to me by one of our research teams !
The North is clearly the place to build (if that is necessary, which in a
sinking
national population, I dispute) - or clear and rebuild derelict urban areas.
It is well served by expensively built roads - which are going to be empty
if this Blair folly persists to repay his Jewish property speculator backers.
If the prospects for the Northern people are improved, then there will
be less drift to the SE and property and land prices across the Uk will
normalize, with less of a premium paid for the SE. This will clearly
be in the interests of everybody who lives in the UK.
On the tangential subject of timber vs brick/stone (raised by the idea that
UK forests could become productive in 5 years) I think that brick
certainly has the argument. (I have a most particular interest in
trees - and I am not aware of any native which could produce usable
timber within 5 years. I am aware, however, that Terry Wogan and
others got into hot water a few years ago for planting sterile pine
forrests across ancient heath in Scotland)
I was amused to read that the building trade refer to timber houses as
"sheds", and I think I can see the logic behind that. The traditional
house in Essex is build with "Essex weather board" - and this does last
a very long time. But only because it is covered in a thick black tar!
I love wood and the outside of my own house has much pine which
is coated in yacht varnish. But let me tell you that it has to be redone
at least once a year - and that is only just about enough ! It is also
bloody expensive !
Wood is certainly a fire hazard and it does rot. I watched some timber
frame houses going up on top of (yet another) farm around here - and the
frames lay in the mud for months on end before they were craned up and
then a skin of brick put up outside. What state that wood is in 10 years
on I would not like to think. And what a pointless exercise !
I can well understand (and sympathise) with people desparate for a house
within their financial reach. Releasing more agricultural/rural green belt
land is not the answer. This would then become just as expensive as
present building land - and the only one's to gain would be the property
speculators. How often have I seen this happen in Essex !?
The answer is to set a national price on house building land by legislation.
This, of course, would put the property speculators who pay Blair's
government out of business - but so much the better. There would also
be (well orchestrated and highly paid) screams about government
interference, "nanny state", and so on.
It would not, of course, hurt the builders (when they are not doing a bit
of land property speculation on the side - which all the big boys do)
since the price of actually building the house would not change.
Indeed, it could even rise and give an honest builder a chance to get a
fair return for his work - instead of the very narrow margins they have
had to work within for some time. With less of the total cost used to
buy the land, people could also afford to build better and more
expensive houses - which would again benefit the honest builder.
The main "winners", of course would be the public - and especially
the young people doomed at present to spend most of their working
lives just to pay for the roof over their heads, assuming they can
afford to buy one in the first place.
As in all things, there is always a fair and reasonable solution to
every problem. But, as in all things, there are always those who are
very happy with any racket, if they happen to be making money out
of it - and if they have the money - they will buy the influence to make
damn sure the solution is never implemented.
The result is the world we live in. A global bloody mess !
Regards, Bob Sims
----------------------------------------------------------------------
News
>
> > Excellent! I fully agree. The land ownership and planning
> > problem affects us all. It is a major issue that most people
> > are not even aware of. Just look at the house people live in
> > Germany, France, and especially the USA and Canada. They
> > live in better houses because they don't pay a fortune for
> > land, which is freely available.
> >
> > This issue should be tackled ASAP. If it was it would
> > result in the quality of life in the UK rising and industry,
> > via the construction industry (also the knock on affect of
> > manufactured goods that supply it) being regenerated.
> >
> > I may even send a donation to "The Land Is Ours"
> > campaign.
> >
> > cheers
>
>
> I have just revisited this thread to see how the debate
> was getting along, and I have to say I am very impressed
> with the level of knowledge on this subject by the contributors.
> I have certainly learned a lot about building regs. and trade
> slang.
>
> In a thread such as this we must beware of the building
> industry PR agents, and I think some evidence of them
> can be detected here, but you will all make your own
> judgements on that.
I think you are right. Not one of them has expressed any concern for the
environment.
> Adam, since I am replying to you,
Bob, you said "all on the thread" too, so I took the liberty of coming in.
> I have to say that the rules in Germany,
> US and Canada ( which you cite by way
> of example) cannot apply here, simply
> because we just do not have their areas
> of land. We are a small Island and I
> feel that we *must* protect the oxygen
> producing green belt.
This is the misconception. The UK is small in comparison to other
countries, but it is not that small. Only 10% of the land is urbanised.
Oxygen growing green fields? If you want Oxygen plant forests. Scotland is
crying out for them - after all they were there until men cut them down.
Did you see the new prog last night on global warming? interesting.
At the beginning of the programme it emphasised the oxygen giving trees
being cut down. To me what is glaringly
obvious is that we should be planting forests in the UK. 97% of our timber
is imported to the tune of 4-5 billion a year. Planting forests to supply
current demand will make us richer and then there is the millions of homes
that are soon to be built. Make then primarily timber framed and we gain in
ecological (more oxygen in growing trees and less cement as this consumes
vast amounts of energy and pollutes in the process) and financial terms. Or
is that too easy? Is that too simple?
> It is all right to say that the "wind brings in the air"
> - but it does not on a still day - and I would know
> where I was if I was blindfolded, simply by breathing,
> when I come home from the City and get off at Hockley !
>
> I cannot agree with the suggestion that we should allow
> the building of yet more "new towns" in the S.E,
Homes we need, that is certain.
> just to house more unemployed people.
Oh come on! Let's get real.
> We have the example of Basildon 15 ish
> miles up the road from me. It is not a
> place I would want to live - and most of
> the people who do try to move out as soon
> as they can. Especially the younger
> people getting married.
There will be no new towns. All existing towns will be extended.
> If you build more houses - then you must also build
> more industry to give the people who live there jobs.
> That is an inescapable reality and a spiral that can
> only end in mixed urban/industrial sprawl. Just
> leaving one area that has been ruined and moving
> on to another to do exactly the same thing again is
> no answer. The answer in a small island with limited
> space is regeneration and *recycling* of the already
> used land and resources.
>
> The idea of leaving the North of England to sink into
> permanent decay, simply on the farcical basis that it
> is not near enough to Europe, is simply criminal.
I couldn't agree more, and the north of England still brings in most of the
country's wealth in industry (we still are an industrial nation, although
southerners would be forgiven for thinking we are not).
> Europe only accounts for 8% of our GDP,
> according to a paper which has just been
> sent to me by one of our research teams !
>
> The North is clearly the place to build (if
> that is necessary, which in a sinking
> national population, I dispute)
The population is not dropping that fast.
> - or clear and rebuild derelict urban areas.
> It is well served by expensively built roads -
> which are going to be empty if this Blair
> folly persists to repay his Jewish property
> speculator backers.
>
> If the prospects for the Northern people are
> improved, then there will be less drift to the
> SE and property and land prices across the Uk will
> normalize, with less of a premium paid for the
> SE. This will clearly be in the interests of
> everybody who lives in the UK.
The only way to stop the drift to the south east is to transfer government
departments to the north of England. This was attempted in the 1970s but
idiot Thatcher stopped it. Also the more important research centre, that
attract high tech industries. Another way is to make London the capital of
England and make a new UK capital in a more central region to the UK
(Merseyside/Deeside is a favourite as it easy for all of Britain to get to,
borders Wales and the right side for northern Ireland).
> On the tangential subject of timber vs brick/stone
> (raised by the idea that UK forests could become
> productive in 5 years) I think that brick certainly
> has the argument. (I have a most particular interest
> in trees - and I am not aware of any native which
> could produce usable timber within 5 years. I
> am aware, however, that Terry Wogan and
> others got into hot water a few years ago for
> planting sterile pine forrests across ancient heath in Scotland)
Scotland is capable of growing almost any tree. Douglas fire grows well in
Wales with the UKs tallest tree there (a Douglas). Brick does not have the
argument over timber, not at all. Using composite wood TJI "I" beams and
hard pre-finished drylining a timber house is super solid. A friend of mine
specified a timber framed house; the "I" beam were only £200 extra over
normal timber. Then there is the environmental aspect. People are pro brick
as they preconceptions over timber. The USA, Canada and Scandinavia can't
all be wrong!!!!
> I was amused to read that the building trade refer
> to timber houses as "sheds", and I think I can see
> the logic behind that.
This is Luddite attitudes.
> The traditional house in Essex is build with
> "Essex weather board" - and this does last
> a very long time. But only because it is
> covered in a thick black tar!
Many timber famed houses, well most, are clad in brick. You can't tell the
difference.
> I love wood and the outside of my own house has
> much pine which is coated in yacht varnish. But
> let me tell you that it has to be redone at least once
> a year - and that is only just about enough ! It is also
> bloody expensive !
External wood is expensive to maintain. Some have external wood cladding,
with no cavities, and render the outside to seal it. Very effective, and
only the occasional paint job.
> Wood is certainly a fire hazard and it does rot.
> I watched some timber frame houses going up
> on top of (yet another) farm around here - and the
> frames lay in the mud for months on end before
> hey were craned up and then a skin of brick put
> up outside. What state that wood is in 10 years
> on I would not like to think. And what a pointless
> exercise !
Lousy builder. Most timber framed houses don't appear on site until the
concrete foundations are laid. A few large trucks come and the men erect
it about 4 days. Put on the roof a day or so after and a dry work
environment. treated wood can stay wet for quite a time with no problems.
Composite "I" beams do not shrink or squeak in ant way. They are virtually
the norm in the USA now.
> I can well understand (and sympathise) with people
> desparate for a house within their financial reach.
> Releasing more agricultural/rural green belt land is not
> the answer.
We have to live somewhere. Why should land be treated any different to any
other commodity? After that is all it is.
> This would then become just as expensive as
> present building land - and the only one's to
> gain would be the property speculators.
Impose the betterment tax to stop it. The government gains the tax and uses
it to promote environmental aspects (I wish).
I'm still of the view that agricultural land should be derestricted and the
planning laws relaxed. All it does is make it difficult for people to have
a decent roof over their heads. Land prices are far too high because their
is an "artificial shortage". get it out of your head that this country has
no land to build on. There is tons of the stuff.
News
> >You should feel ashamed at your lack of knowledge
> >heard of a "breathing wall" before, neither had
> >the architect.
>
> Allowing a building to "breathe" means to ventilate it.
Yes teminology!! The "breathing wall" breaths vapour. Clever people these
Germans.