|
Posted by Warm Worm on October 24, 2007, 5:07 pm
Don 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
>>
>
> Timber is on the moon, no matter what you do with it.
> 2x4 sticks are comparatively much cheaper.
It wouldn't surprise me, which is ok because other materials are fine
for post and beam.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap