Mass Timber building. Good for the enviroment.

[lg325]

MSN

I am not sure if this is the right board for this but I know some who post here are familiar with construction. I read the article and understand the point being made but I wonder if there is an opposing argument to their position. After working years in residential and agriculture construction, It was always the idea to get away from wooden construction. So I am looking for some knowledgeable opinions on the subject. Just for my own curiosity

 

[1srelluc]

It's what termites dream of.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Wood structures have always been eco-friendly, organic, and trees are easily regrown after cutting down.
Unlike concrete and metals, which have to be mined, processed, and manufactured into parts.

As the article states, wood is a natural insulator for both heat and cooling. Wood doesn't need toxic chemical additives like many concretes do, and don't require special coatings like metals do, to keep them from rusting.

Wood pieces are used for other purposes as well, after construction. Whereas concrete and metal are just landfill.

Man made dwellings out of wood, rocks, and mud for centuries. If you live by the rules of nature, nature will provide.

 

[lennypartiv]

Wood (trees) are a renewable source. That being said, some "experts" recommend more concrete be used in homes in FL because of hurricanes and OK because of tornadoes.

 

[Woodznutz]

Wood (trees) are a renewable source. That being said, some "experts" recommend more concrete be used in homes in FL because of hurricanes and OK because of tornadoes.

Wood structures can be very strong against storms, but they must be made of solid wood, not flimsy hollow wall framing.

 

[Dekster]

Untreated composite wood? I mean it might be cool today, but get back to us in 20 years and let us know how this building is fairing.

The general rule of thumb is that the least ecologically damaging thing you can do is buy an existing building, even if you need to renovate it or expand it. I personally think that subterranean would have to be the most environmentally friendly even if if involved a lot of steel and concrete. The energy savings would be huge over the life of the structure.

 

[Woodznutz]

Untreated composite wood? I mean it might be cool today, but get back to us in 20 years and let us know how this building is fairing.

The general rule of thumb is that the least ecologically damaging thing you can do is buy an existing building, even if you need to renovate it or expand it. I personally think that subterranean would have to be the most environmentally friendly even if if involved a lot of steel and concrete. The energy savings would be huge over the life of the structure.

"Earth homes" were a thing back in the 1970's but never found a large market. Most people want windows to look out of and enjoy natural air circulation. Thicker walls and more insulation would greatly reduce energy costs.

 

[Dekster]

"Earth homes" were a thing back in the 1970's but never found a large market. Most people want windows to look out of and enjoy natural air circulation. Thicker walls and more insulation would greatly reduce energy costs.

If I ever win the lottery, I will build one. I plan to have one open side so more like built into a hillside than completely underground. I suspect the black mold phobia probably still keeps even the idea of them at bay as a solution to global warming. Well, that and they aren't viable in large urban (and highly damaging) areas where the AGW truest believers all reside.

 

[Woodznutz]

If I ever win the lottery, I will build one. I plan to have one open side so more like built into a hillside than completely underground. I suspect the black mold phobia probably still keeps even the idea of them at bay as a solution to global warming. Well, that and they aren't viable in large urban (and highly damaging) areas where the AGW truest believers all reside.

That's the ideal setup, with south facing windows for passive solar heating.