|
Posted by Warm Worm on October 24, 2007, 5:01 pm
Edgar wrote:
>> I really like the apparent potential for open spaces and light and the
>> beauty of the wood and/or seeing the structure-- the posts and beams--
>> as exposed as possible-- at least from the inside...
>>
>> That said, I was just wondering what would be cheaper to build; a
>> timber frame construct with an external load bearing wall (or where
>> the external wall is exactly in-between the posts), or one where the
>> post and beams/lintels are inside the home and exposed that way, while
>> the exterior wall is a simple non-load-bearing shell, a distance out
>> from the beams.
>>
>> >From the book 'The House You Build', there was a claim, if I recall,
>> that it was cheaper and/or easier to build external walls that were
>> not load-bearing. (Presumably, the timber would benefit from not being
>> exposed to the elements.)
>>
>> Also, would stick frames be cheaper than post and beam frames? I
>> prefer post and beam, based on what I've seen, and have always been a
>> fan of renovated barns for homes.
>> SIPS seem a little dubious to me from an aesthetic soulful standpoint
>> too.
>>
>> "Although there has been a move away from larger beams (or at least
>> toward engineered wood) in order to reduce pressure to cut old growth
>> forests, this conventional wisdom may be less relevant when applied to
>> FSC certified beams. By buying larger beams, you're encouraging the
>> woodlot owners to cut some trees on a longer rotation, promoting a
>> forest that is more ecological robust."
>> http://www.sensiblehouse.org/tu_construction.shtml
>>
>
> I'm no carpenter, but isn't the point of post and beam construction that
> there is no need for load bearing walls, and rather the joints take care of
> the lateral loads, leaving walls to be mainly infill?
I think so, which is what seems to lend itself to lots of glass (not
that a load bearing wall can't be a glass wall).
You can make the joints any way you want as long of course as they're
properly engineered.
> If there are load
> bearing walls, what exactly would be the form of construction on those? If
> your going to make stick built load bearing walls there is no need for the
> post and beam. However, maybe you mean stick built walls with exposed beams
> above.
>
> Anyways, I agree a lot with the exposed wood. I like to see how a building
> comes together (and I know that is a personal preference). I've always had
> a thing for large exposed glu-lam beams.
They sound nice. While exposed wood in general can be nice, I've seen
places where it's way too much for me-- like from the ceiling to the
floor in wood. I like a balanced, maybe even Zen-like mix of materials,
patterns and textures. (As an aside, I'm also less than crazy about
wallpaper.)
I like light and space a lot, and a view and connection to the outside
where at all possible, as well as exposed structure, like the posts and
beams, but also even the ductwork and pipes-- where possible. Obviously,
it's doubtful people would like to hear everytime a toilet was flushed
and the water and whatever else rushing down the pipe just after. :)
> I was thinking the other day how
> it would be kind of neat to take back the 3 1/2" wasted air space between my
> living room and the hallway to use for bookshelves. Rather than just build
> them over the finish, you could build into the wall and gain a couple of
> extra inches for the hallway. The only possible reason to keep it I guess
> would be sound transmission, but it's not really a place where such a thing
> needs to be considered.
Definitely a good idea, although wouldn't you lose hallway space with
that adaptation?
That makes me think of those cool stairs-shaped dressers/cabinets that
fit like puzzles snugly under stairways.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap