If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Se=F1ior_Popcor on August 31, 2009, 1:02 am
wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> Se=F1ior Popcorn-Coconut> wrote:
> > Oh ya, and you can also take many PAB frames
> > apart and rebuild/re-use them, and they last long.
> Depends.
> I went down to Bedford a couple weeks ago to look at a 19th century
> barn someone was giving away and decided it wasn't worth the effort.
> The elements had gotten to the structure and prior to that the animals
> had given it a thorough thrashing.
> Imagine a century of cows chewing on stuff.
> Some of the upper structure, the hay mow <sp> was salvageable but the
> guy said take all of it or none of it, so I walked.
> 15 years ago I helped a guy in Kentucky disassemble an 18th century
> real log cabin (18" wide logs, square cut, double dovetail) and
> transport it to West Virginia and reconstruct it. What a job.
> Analyzing old wood is a science and I'm in kindergarten.
> I pounded a steel drift into the center of a 12"x12" column and it
> went all the way in with little effort.
> Not good.
> In fact, I had to use another drift to pound the first one all the way
> through and out the other side to get it out.
> On another one, more toward the center of the building, the drift
> bounced off the surface of the column, it was solid maple.
> I like the look of the stuff, the post and beam, where, like you said,
> the craftsmanship becomes the art of the thing, and a constant
> reminder of the effort involved, not to mention the cost.
> The harder the wood, the easier to work.
Logs interest me less than PAB's, but maybe slightly more than sticks.
I have a problem with the idea of many kinds of sticks, unless for
smaller-scale homes, in which case, their scale renders their stick-
structure more like PAB anyway, and that's how they might do well to
be approached.
Post-and-beams (what I prefer to call them, over 'timberframes') are
probably cheaper in the long run, and maybe even in the short too, if
you factor in many other things that some people don't seem to
consider.
(And there is value to be had beyond mere money).
All things out of consideration, however, they're still not that much
more expensive than sticks, and so still worth it for what you get,
which is far more.
Another thing is whether PAB's (at least their frames, bents and/or
sections) are (more) conducive to being prefabbed offsite; if a
shorter time is needed to build them once onsite (and even in total);
and if there is less environmental impact to the site.
|
|
Posted by creative1985@gmail.com on August 31, 2009, 10:14 pm
show/hide quoted text
> wrote:
> > Se=F1ior Popcorn-Coconut> wrote:
> > > Oh ya, and you can also take many PAB frames
> > > apart and rebuild/re-use them, and they last long.
> > Depends.
> > I went down to Bedford a couple weeks ago to look at a 19th century
> > barn someone was giving away and decided it wasn't worth the effort.
> > The elements had gotten to the structure and prior to that the animals
> > had given it a thorough thrashing.
> > Imagine a century of cows chewing on stuff.
> > Some of the upper structure, the hay mow <sp> was salvageable but the
> > guy said take all of it or none of it, so I walked.
> > 15 years ago I helped a guy in Kentucky disassemble an 18th century
> > real log cabin (18" wide logs, square cut, double dovetail) and
> > transport it to West Virginia and reconstruct it. What a job.
> > Analyzing old wood is a science and I'm in kindergarten.
> > I pounded a steel drift into the center of a 12"x12" column and it
> > went all the way in with little effort.
> > Not good.
> > In fact, I had to use another drift to pound the first one all the way
> > through and out the other side to get it out.
> > On another one, more toward the center of the building, the drift
> > bounced off the surface of the column, it was solid maple.
> > I like the look of the stuff, the post and beam, where, like you said,
> > the craftsmanship becomes the art of the thing, and a constant
> > reminder of the effort involved, not to mention the cost.
> > The harder the wood, the easier to work.
> Logs interest me less than PAB's, but maybe slightly more than sticks.
> I have a problem with the idea of many kinds of sticks, unless for
> smaller-scale homes, in which case, their scale renders their stick-
> structure more like PAB anyway, and that's how they might do well to
> be approached.
> Post-and-beams (what I prefer to call them, over 'timberframes') are
> probably cheaper in the long run, and maybe even in the short too, if
> you factor in many other things that some people don't seem to
> consider.
> (And there is value to be had beyond mere money).
> All things out of consideration, however, they're still not that much
> more expensive than sticks, and so still worth it for what you get,
> which is far more.
> Another thing is whether PAB's (at least their frames, bents and/or
> sections) are (more) conducive to being prefabbed offsite; if a
> shorter time is needed to build them once onsite (and even in total);
> and if there is less environmental impact to the site.
Oh dear.
No slam, but where did you get the idea that PAB wasn't much more
expensive than sticks, assuming you mean 2x studs?
Large chunks of lumber are HUGELY expensive in themselves, the labor
for the joinery is very expensive and the erection of the heavy timers
is very expensive as well. And get this, all of it is purely cosmetic!
There is no structural reason to warrant large timbers for home
construction.
Here's a pretty accurate rule of thumb for residential construction
using conventional method.
Materials =3D $X
Labor =3D 2x $X
For PAB I'd guess the cost is:
Material =3D 4x $X
Labor =3D 4x $X
And I'm probably too conservative.
Further, you still have to use sticks or some such other filler
material between the PAB's.
There's a reason why you never see small PAB homes.
Almost all of them are large because the people that can afford them
won't live in a small house.
I designed Mike Greenwells house and in the ceiling of the living
room, up at the 2nd floor level, was a douglas fir ridge beam 18" wide
x 24" deep x 28' long and that beam alone cost $9,000. and it was
supporting a network of perpendicular, smaller beams (rafters) which
were supporting even smaller purlins, all douglas fir. The sheathing
was exposed and pickled, driftwood finished 2x6 T&G southern yellow
pine with 12" of closed cell foam on top and standing seam steel
roofing. I did the shop fabrication drawings on all of the steel
connection plates which were stainless steel.
PAB is fun to play and dream with but for 99.99% of the population
that is all it is, a dream.
I heard of a concept the otherday that never occurred to me: using a
regular water heater to power a radiant floor heating system.
Now the wheels are turning.
I wonder which rocks retain heat the best?
I would imagine the densest ones, like maybe granite.
Did I tell you that I've taken up stone carving?
Fun, kinda easy, but pretty dusty.
I clamp the stone down and hold the carver in one hand and the shop
vac nozzle in the other, about 1" apart.
Grind, suck, grind, suck. LOL
Gave my first carving to my mother in law for her flower garden and
she swooned.
Now, I'm researching bigger rocks and how to transport them.
My poor ol truck gets bowlegged if I put more than about 400# on it.
I wanna do a real big one, maybe 10 ton or more, carve it on site,
maybe egrets in flight or sumfink....or the man in the moon. ha!
|
|
Posted by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Se=F1ior_Popcor on September 1, 2009, 2:29 pm
wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> > wrote:
> > > Se=F1ior Popcorn-Coconut> wrote:
> > > > Oh ya, and you can also take many PAB frames
> > > > apart and rebuild/re-use them, and they last long.
> > > Depends.
> > > I went down to Bedford a couple weeks ago to look at a 19th century
> > > barn someone was giving away and decided it wasn't worth the effort.
> > > The elements had gotten to the structure and prior to that the animal=
> > > had given it a thorough thrashing.
> > > Imagine a century of cows chewing on stuff.
> > > Some of the upper structure, the hay mow <sp> was salvageable but the
> > > guy said take all of it or none of it, so I walked.
> > > 15 years ago I helped a guy in Kentucky disassemble an 18th century
> > > real log cabin (18" wide logs, square cut, double dovetail) and
> > > transport it to West Virginia and reconstruct it. What a job.
> > > Analyzing old wood is a science and I'm in kindergarten.
> > > I pounded a steel drift into the center of a 12"x12" column and it
> > > went all the way in with little effort.
> > > Not good.
> > > In fact, I had to use another drift to pound the first one all the wa=
> > > through and out the other side to get it out.
> > > On another one, more toward the center of the building, the drift
> > > bounced off the surface of the column, it was solid maple.
> > > I like the look of the stuff, the post and beam, where, like you said=
> > > the craftsmanship becomes the art of the thing, and a constant
> > > reminder of the effort involved, not to mention the cost.
> > > The harder the wood, the easier to work.
> > Logs interest me less than PAB's, but maybe slightly more than sticks.
> > I have a problem with the idea of many kinds of sticks, unless for
> > smaller-scale homes, in which case, their scale renders their stick-
> > structure more like PAB anyway, and that's how they might do well to
> > be approached.
> > Post-and-beams (what I prefer to call them, over 'timberframes') are
> > probably cheaper in the long run, and maybe even in the short too, if
> > you factor in many other things that some people don't seem to
> > consider.
> > (And there is value to be had beyond mere money).
> > All things out of consideration, however, they're still not that much
> > more expensive than sticks, and so still worth it for what you get,
> > which is far more.
> > Another thing is whether PAB's (at least their frames, bents and/or
> > sections) are (more) conducive to being prefabbed offsite; if a
> > shorter time is needed to build them once onsite (and even in total);
> > and if there is less environmental impact to the site.
> Oh dear.
> No slam, but where did you get the idea that PAB wasn't much more
> expensive than sticks, assuming you mean 2x studs?
> Large chunks of lumber are HUGELY expensive in themselves, the labor
> for the joinery is very expensive and the erection of the heavy timers
> is very expensive as well. And get this, all of it is purely cosmetic!
I'm talking about structural post and beam, as opposed to cosmetic,
and have seen a few quotes online of 10%-15% more expensive in total
for the finished house, if I read correctly.
The actual PAB frame alone is a little more expensive, but I'm still
getting 30%-35%.
show/hide quoted text
> There is no structural reason to warrant large timbers for home
> construction.
To me there is and there are other reasons too.
From what I'm learning, they last a very long time; are reusable
(recyclable); may be able to handle fires better (larger diameter
timbers); are cost-effective over the long run; create better spaces;
are good for earthquakes and hurricanes; are preferred by many people
from an aesthetic/spiritual/historic/natural standpoint (and therefore
may have better intrinsic, social, lasting and/or resale/rental
value); and maybe more reasons too.
show/hide quoted text
> Here's a pretty accurate rule of thumb for residential construction
> using conventional method.
> Materials =3D $X
> Labor =3D 2x $X
> For PAB I'd guess the cost is:
My clients want more than guesswork.
show/hide quoted text
> Material =3D 4x $X
> Labor =3D 4x $X
> And I'm probably too conservative.
> Further, you still have to use sticks or some such other filler
> material between the PAB's.
I have seen a PAB design in the book 'The House You Build', by Duo
Dickinson, that apparently has the external walls away from the posts
and beams (which is what I like-- the idea that you can swing
completely around an "external" post from the inside), so that there's
no, or less, infill required. I don't yet know how they made the walls
though. Perhaps SIP's or 2x4's and some windows.
show/hide quoted text
> There's a reason why you never see small PAB homes.
I already have online. I've seen all kinds of sizes, from sheds and
cabins on up to timber-processing factories made of PABs.
show/hide quoted text
> Almost all of them are large because the people that can afford them
> won't live in a small house.
Ironically, a smaller house is one way to get a very nice PAB.
show/hide quoted text
> PAB is fun to play and dream with but for 99.99% of the population
> that is all it is, a dream.
You can believe whatever you want to believe.
|
|
Posted by creative1985@gmail.com on September 3, 2009, 2:15 pm
show/hide quoted text
> Se=F1ior Popcorn-Coconut wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 10:14=A0pm, "creative1...@gmail.com" <creative1...@gmail.com=
> > wrote:
ote:
show/hide quoted text
> > > > On Aug 29, 2:36 pm, "creative1...@gmail.com" <creative1...@gmail.co=
m>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Se=F1ior Popcorn-Coconut> wrote:
> > > > > > Oh ya, and you can also take many PAB frames
> > > > > > apart and rebuild/re-use them, and they last long.
> > > > > Depends.
> > > > > I went down to Bedford a couple weeks ago to look at a 19th centu=
> > > > > barn someone was giving away and decided it wasn't worth the effo=
rt.
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > The elements had gotten to the structure and prior to that the an=
imals
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > had given it a thorough thrashing.
> > > > > Imagine a century of cows chewing on stuff.
> > > > > Some of the upper structure, the hay mow <sp> was salvageable but=
the
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > guy said take all of it or none of it, so I walked.
> > > > > 15 years ago I helped a guy in Kentucky disassemble an 18th centu=
> > > > > real log cabin (18" wide logs, square cut, double dovetail) and
> > > > > transport it to West Virginia and reconstruct it. What a job.
> > > > > Analyzing old wood is a science and I'm in kindergarten.
> > > > > I pounded a steel drift into the center of a 12"x12" column and i=
> > > > > went all the way in with little effort.
> > > > > Not good.
> > > > > In fact, I had to use another drift to pound the first one all th=
e way
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > through and out the other side to get it out.
> > > > > On another one, more toward the center of the building, the drift
> > > > > bounced off the surface of the column, it was solid maple.
> > > > > I like the look of the stuff, the post and beam, where, like you =
said,
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > the craftsmanship becomes the art of the thing, and a constant
> > > > > reminder of the effort involved, not to mention the cost.
> > > > > The harder the wood, the easier to work.
> > > > Logs interest me less than PAB's, but maybe slightly more than stic=
ks.
show/hide quoted text
> > > > I have a problem with the idea of many kinds of sticks, unless for
> > > > smaller-scale homes, in which case, their scale renders their stick=
> > > > structure more like PAB anyway, and that's how they might do well t=
> > > > be approached.
> > > > Post-and-beams (what I prefer to call them, over 'timberframes') ar=
> > > > probably cheaper in the long run, and maybe even in the short too, =
> > > > you factor in many other things that some people don't seem to
> > > > consider.
> > > > (And there is value to be had beyond mere money).
> > > > All things out of consideration, however, they're still not that mu=
> > > > more expensive than sticks, and so still worth it for what you get,
> > > > which is far more.
> > > > Another thing is whether PAB's (at least their frames, bents and/or
> > > > sections) are (more) conducive to being prefabbed offsite; if a
> > > > shorter time is needed to build them once onsite (and even in total=
> > > > and if there is less environmental impact to the site.
> > > Oh dear.
> > > No slam, but where did you get the idea that PAB wasn't much more
> > > expensive than sticks, assuming you mean 2x studs?
> > > Large chunks of lumber are HUGELY expensive in themselves, the labor
> > > for the joinery is very expensive and the erection of the heavy timer=
> > > is very expensive as well. And get this, all of it is purely cosmetic=
> > I'm talking about structural post and beam, as opposed to cosmetic,
> > and have seen a few quotes online of 10%-15% more expensive in total
> > for the finished house, if I read correctly.
> > The actual PAB frame alone is a little more expensive, but I'm still
> > getting 30%-35%.
> > > There is no structural reason to warrant large timbers for home
> > > construction.
> > To me there is and there are other reasons too.
> > From what I'm learning, they last a very long time; are reusable
> > (recyclable); may be able to handle fires better (larger diameter
> > timbers); are cost-effective over the long run; create better spaces;
> > are good for earthquakes and hurricanes; are preferred by many people
> > from an aesthetic/spiritual/historic/natural standpoint (and therefore
> > may have better intrinsic, social, lasting and/or resale/rental
> > value); and maybe more reasons too.
> > > Here's a pretty accurate rule of thumb for residential construction
> > > using conventional method.
> > > Materials =3D $X
> > > Labor =3D 2x $X
> > > For PAB I'd guess the cost is:
> > My clients want more than guesswork.
> > > Material =3D 4x $X
> > > Labor =3D 4x $X
> > > And I'm probably too conservative.
> > > Further, you still have to use sticks or some such other filler
> > > material between the PAB's.
> > I have seen a PAB design in the book 'The House You Build', by Duo
> > Dickinson, that apparently has the external walls away from the posts
> > and beams (which is what I like-- the idea that you can swing
> > completely around an "external" post from the inside), so that there's
> > no, or less, infill required. I don't yet know how they made the walls
> > though. Perhaps SIP's or 2x4's and some windows.
> > > There's a reason why you never see small PAB homes.
> > I already have online. I've seen all kinds of sizes, from sheds and
> > cabins on up to timber-processing factories made of PABs.
> > > Almost all of them are large because the people that can afford them
> > > won't live in a small house.
> > Ironically, a smaller house is one way to get a very nice PAB.
> > > PAB is fun to play and dream with but for 99.99% of the population
> > > that is all it is, a dream.
> > You can believe whatever you want to believe.
> I agree with Mr. Popcorn.
> I designed a shed/shop and we built it, here's pix,
> http://www.trak4.com/shed/index.html
> An advantage of that system is many components (except roof
> and piers) can be prefabed, such as floor, posts, beams and
> walls can be done on a table.
> Don't know if it's easy to scale to a classy house.
> Ken
First off, both you guys need to get your heads straight on the
definition of terms, both of you are all over the map in that regard.
Second, as far as cost is concerned, there is reality then there is
the internet.
Reality always has its way.
If anyone is *seriously* considering post and beam construction I
suggest they talk directly to someone locally that can provide the
materials and the craftsmanship to fabricate and assemble the parts
involved and have that person give you a primer on ALL of the costs
involved.
Otherwise, keep dreaming.
Hell, using ya'lls definition of post and beam, the deck I built can
be called that.
I mean, it has posts and it has beams........
Welcome to Euphemasia, where nobody means what they mean.
|
|
Posted by creative1985@gmail.com on September 6, 2009, 10:19 am
show/hide quoted text
> creative1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Se=F1ior Popcorn-Coconut wrote:
> > > > On Aug 31, 10:14=A0pm, "creative1...@gmail.com" <creative1...@gmail=
.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 31, 1:02=A0am, Se=F1ior Popcorn-Coconut <glome...@yahoo.ca=
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:36 pm, "creative1...@gmail.com" <creative1...@gmai=
l.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Se=F1ior Popcorn-Coconut> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Oh ya, and you can also take many PAB frames
> > > > > > > > apart and rebuild/re-use them, and they last long.
> > > > > > > Depends.
> > > > > > > I went down to Bedford a couple weeks ago to look at a 19th c=
entury
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > > barn someone was giving away and decided it wasn't worth the =
effort.
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > > The elements had gotten to the structure and prior to that th=
e animals
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > > had given it a thorough thrashing.
> > > > > > > Imagine a century of cows chewing on stuff.
> > > > > > > Some of the upper structure, the hay mow <sp> was salvageable=
but the
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > > guy said take all of it or none of it, so I walked.
> > > > > > > 15 years ago I helped a guy in Kentucky disassemble an 18th c=
entury
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > > real log cabin (18" wide logs, square cut, double dovetail) a=
> > > > > > > transport it to West Virginia and reconstruct it. What a job.
> > > > > > > Analyzing old wood is a science and I'm in kindergarten.
> > > > > > > I pounded a steel drift into the center of a 12"x12" column a=
nd it
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > > went all the way in with little effort.
> > > > > > > Not good.
> > > > > > > In fact, I had to use another drift to pound the first one al=
l the way
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > > through and out the other side to get it out.
> > > > > > > On another one, more toward the center of the building, the d=
rift
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > > bounced off the surface of the column, it was solid maple.
> > > > > > > I like the look of the stuff, the post and beam, where, like =
you said,
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > > the craftsmanship becomes the art of the thing, and a constan=
> > > > > > > reminder of the effort involved, not to mention the cost.
> > > > > > > The harder the wood, the easier to work.
> > > > > > Logs interest me less than PAB's, but maybe slightly more than =
sticks.
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > I have a problem with the idea of many kinds of sticks, unless =
for
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > smaller-scale homes, in which case, their scale renders their s=
tick-
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > structure more like PAB anyway, and that's how they might do we=
ll to
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > be approached.
> > > > > > Post-and-beams (what I prefer to call them, over 'timberframes'=
) are
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > probably cheaper in the long run, and maybe even in the short t=
oo, if
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > you factor in many other things that some people don't seem to
> > > > > > consider.
> > > > > > (And there is value to be had beyond mere money).
> > > > > > All things out of consideration, however, they're still not tha=
t much
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > more expensive than sticks, and so still worth it for what you =
get,
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > which is far more.
> > > > > > Another thing is whether PAB's (at least their frames, bents an=
d/or
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > sections) are (more) conducive to being prefabbed offsite; if a
> > > > > > shorter time is needed to build them once onsite (and even in t=
otal);
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > > and if there is less environmental impact to the site.
> > > > > Oh dear.
> > > > > No slam, but where did you get the idea that PAB wasn't much more
> > > > > expensive than sticks, assuming you mean 2x studs?
> > > > > Large chunks of lumber are HUGELY expensive in themselves, the la=
bor
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > for the joinery is very expensive and the erection of the heavy t=
imers
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > is very expensive as well. And get this, all of it is purely cosm=
etic!
show/hide quoted text
> > > > I'm talking about structural post and beam, as opposed to cosmetic,
> > > > and have seen a few quotes online of 10%-15% more expensive in tota=
> > > > for the finished house, if I read correctly.
> > > > The actual PAB frame alone is a little more expensive, but I'm stil=
> > > > getting 30%-35%.
> > > > > There is no structural reason to warrant large timbers for home
> > > > > construction.
> > > > To me there is and there are other reasons too.
> > > > From what I'm learning, they last a very long time; are reusable
> > > > (recyclable); may be able to handle fires better (larger diameter
> > > > timbers); are cost-effective over the long run; create better space=
> > > > are good for earthquakes and hurricanes; are preferred by many peop=
> > > > from an aesthetic/spiritual/historic/natural standpoint (and theref=
ore
show/hide quoted text
> > > > may have better intrinsic, social, lasting and/or resale/rental
> > > > value); and maybe more reasons too.
> > > > > Here's a pretty accurate rule of thumb for residential constructi=
> > > > > using conventional method.
> > > > > Materials =3D $X
> > > > > Labor =3D 2x $X
> > > > > For PAB I'd guess the cost is:
> > > > My clients want more than guesswork.
> > > > > Material =3D 4x $X
> > > > > Labor =3D 4x $X
> > > > > And I'm probably too conservative.
> > > > > Further, you still have to use sticks or some such other filler
> > > > > material between the PAB's.
> > > > I have seen a PAB design in the book 'The House You Build', by Duo
> > > > Dickinson, that apparently has the external walls away from the pos=
> > > > and beams (which is what I like-- the idea that you can swing
> > > > completely around an "external" post from the inside), so that ther=
e's
show/hide quoted text
> > > > no, or less, infill required. I don't yet know how they made the wa=
lls
show/hide quoted text
> > > > though. Perhaps SIP's or 2x4's and some windows.
> > > > > There's a reason why you never see small PAB homes.
> > > > I already have online. I've seen all kinds of sizes, from sheds and
> > > > cabins on up to timber-processing factories made of PABs.
> > > > > Almost all of them are large because the people that can afford t=
hem
show/hide quoted text
> > > > > won't live in a small house.
> > > > Ironically, a smaller house is one way to get a very nice PAB.
> > > > > PAB is fun to play and dream with but for 99.99% of the populatio=
> > > > > that is all it is, a dream.
> > > > You can believe whatever you want to believe.
> > > I agree with Mr. Popcorn.
> > > I designed a shed/shop and we built it, here's pix,
> > >http://www.trak4.com/shed/index.html
> > > An advantage of that system is many components (except roof
> > > and piers) can be prefabed, such as floor, posts, beams and
> > > walls can be done on a table.
> > > Don't know if it's easy to scale to a classy house.
> > > Ken
> > First off, both you guys need to get your heads straight on the
> > definition of terms, both of you are all over the map in that regard.
> > Second, as far as cost is concerned, there is reality then there is
> > the internet.
> > Reality always has its way.
> > If anyone is *seriously* considering post and beam construction I
> > suggest they talk directly to someone locally that can provide the
> > materials and the craftsmanship to fabricate and assemble the parts
> > involved and have that person give you a primer on ALL of the costs
> > involved.
> > Otherwise, keep dreaming.
> > Hell, using ya'lls definition of post and beam, the deck I built can
> > be called that.
> > I mean, it has posts and it has beams........
> > Welcome to Euphemasia, where nobody means what they mean.
> Knock knock, anybody home?
> I supplied a typical P&B construction with some pix above.
> The posts are 4x4+, the beams 4x16 (hollow), and provide all
> the headers respecting the roof joists/trusses.
> I pretty much had the Bill of Materials nailed within 10%.
> Into each segment was installed customized walls, built on
> 4x8 benches, neat accurate and easy.
> Ken
In Richards words, those things are *sticks*, not post and beam like
he showed in his drawing and what is normally referred to as Post &
Beam construction.
Hell, all stick built homes have the stuff you mentioned, but its a
rare home that has Post & Beam construction.
As far as your cost estimate goes, thats pretty easy when the costs
are already known.
Everything I've built so far has been within a few cents of what I
figured because I called the suppliers up first and got the numbers
and my labor was free.
Labor is the difficult part to figure the cost of when outside help is
required.
Post and Beam construction, like Richard has been talking about has
huge labor costs not to mention things like cranes, come-a-longs and
outright muscle to get the things in place properly.
|
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 > last >>
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> > Oh ya, and you can also take many PAB frames
> > apart and rebuild/re-use them, and they last long.
> Depends.
> I went down to Bedford a couple weeks ago to look at a 19th century
> barn someone was giving away and decided it wasn't worth the effort.
> The elements had gotten to the structure and prior to that the animals
> had given it a thorough thrashing.
> Imagine a century of cows chewing on stuff.
> Some of the upper structure, the hay mow <sp> was salvageable but the
> guy said take all of it or none of it, so I walked.
> 15 years ago I helped a guy in Kentucky disassemble an 18th century
> real log cabin (18" wide logs, square cut, double dovetail) and
> transport it to West Virginia and reconstruct it. What a job.
> Analyzing old wood is a science and I'm in kindergarten.
> I pounded a steel drift into the center of a 12"x12" column and it
> went all the way in with little effort.
> Not good.
> In fact, I had to use another drift to pound the first one all the way
> through and out the other side to get it out.
> On another one, more toward the center of the building, the drift
> bounced off the surface of the column, it was solid maple.
> I like the look of the stuff, the post and beam, where, like you said,
> the craftsmanship becomes the art of the thing, and a constant
> reminder of the effort involved, not to mention the cost.
> The harder the wood, the easier to work.