|
Posted by Edgar on October 25, 2007, 12:07 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. :)
>
Yeah I agree, I've seen some places that were just too much wood. Balance
is always good. One of the nicest homes I saw used standard stick built
walls, but had large posts and curved glu-lams here and there over the large
spaces. Looked really nice.
>> 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.
Yeah I would lose a little space in the hallway. When we first came to look
at our house, the original owners had some shallow bookcases there, and it
didn't really affect the hallway too badly, didn't feel cramped or anything
(they were about the depth that you would use for DVD cases). So I got
thinking if you took back the wall cavity space you could have even deeper
shelving and be ablt to use it for more than just DVDs. Of course it would
need some type of backing so you don't punch a hole through the plaster on
the backside so you'd get maybe 2 to 3 inches of the actual 3.5 in there.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap