Taped joints in building plastic is something that feels dangerous. Today, there are requirements for how airtight it must be to avoid mold. I wonder how it will work in 35 years with those joints.....frjo7205 said:
Roofs with "plastic tarpaulin" instead of tar paper on the roof" I get chills.....
Heated slabs on the ground are another thing. What happens when the underfloor heating leaks and the slab is no longer warm?
Is the building method designed for the moisture movement that occurs then?
I have nothing against slab on grade, I have it today. But I've taken a liking to warm foundations and the way rising heat is utilized. It's a very simple idea that I simply believe in. The problem is that too few dare to use it, and no one wants to be the pioneer when it comes to new technology.5.2 racing said:
I'm going to build a new one myself during the year, but I'm not sure if I dare to proceed with a warm foundation.
When you read some renovation threads, you start to wonder. Normal maintenance on a 50-year-old house, is it to replace electricity and sewage, all waterproof layers, redo the roofs, level the floor in the basement, add insulation, put metal on the chimney, lay a new roof with metal insulation and polyester membrane underneath, reroute all water pipes, and renovate wet areas for a small fortune each?MathiasS said:
With enough maintenance, you can save most things. But with 'built to last,' I mean the house should be considered easy to care for and well-built for a hundred years. But it will certainly require maintenance.
Thank you for getting the thread going. I just wanted to briefly build on frjo7205's points, which were very interesting (since they align well with my own thoughts )
1) Today's small wooden houses are almost the opposite, right? The plasterboards in the interior walls are designed to absorb shear forces (or?), and the vapor barrier inside the wall is perhaps the material with the shortest lifespan, perhaps shorter than the exterior panel.
And this thing with underfloor heating, built-in spotlights, and water pipes in the wall. The lifespan of technology is one thing, but when you need to move the guest toilet after 20 years... Maybe it's the surface-mounted option that's future-proof?
2) Could one imagine an empty, self-supporting frame á la open-plan office, where it's easy to put up metal studs and plasterboard? All plumbing functions could be gathered around a central shaft, and the electrical and data networks could run on trays (or why not thick pipes of 10cm+ where new lines could easily be pulled).
You avoided answering frjo, how would you build a 200m2 house for a family if you were given the task "built to last," and a budget (for the frame) of say 50% over a standard house?
)1) Today's small wooden houses are almost the opposite, right? The plasterboards in the interior walls are designed to absorb shear forces (or?), and the vapor barrier inside the wall is perhaps the material with the shortest lifespan, perhaps shorter than the exterior panel.
And this thing with underfloor heating, built-in spotlights, and water pipes in the wall. The lifespan of technology is one thing, but when you need to move the guest toilet after 20 years... Maybe it's the surface-mounted option that's future-proof?
2) Could one imagine an empty, self-supporting frame á la open-plan office, where it's easy to put up metal studs and plasterboard? All plumbing functions could be gathered around a central shaft, and the electrical and data networks could run on trays (or why not thick pipes of 10cm+ where new lines could easily be pulled).
You avoided answering frjo
, how would you build a 200m2 house for a family if you were given the task "built to last," and a budget (for the frame) of say 50% over a standard house?
I think it’s much about raising the standard or repurposing spaces than what they were originally intended for.-MH- said:If you read some renovation threads, you start to wonder. Normal maintenance on a 50-year-old house, is it to replace electricity and plumbing, all waterproofing, redo the roofs, raise the floor in the basement, add insulation, put sheet metal on the chimney, lay a new roof with metal insulation and polyertsrpapp underneath, rerun all the water pipes and renovate wet areas for a fortune each?
With enough maintenance, you can save most things. But with 'built to last' I mean the house should be considered easy to maintain and well-built for a hundred years. But of course, it will require maintenance.
My simple house built of wood in the last years of the 40s has stood firm for 60 years. It will stand just as long after my renovation. Apart from damage caused by poor maintenance (large holes in the roof, for example), I haven't found anything that's worn out. Well actually, the electrical installation. But considering the house's structure, it's completely unaffected.
Brick seems to be spot on. Check out e.g. the Mariakyrkan in Siguna:
750 years old and from a distance looks almost newly built.
750 years old and from a distance looks almost newly built.
Neither logs nor planks. It's modular-built walls, almost 45x70 (but slightly smaller dimensions) with raw boards on the inside and outside. Sawdust as insulation in the interior walls, tretex in the modules of the exterior walls. I believe I live in an old Borohus.-MH- said:
Well, normal maintenance after 50 years is roughly what MH describes. I don't think it's economically rational to try to create a practical lifespan for anything other than foundations and frame structures that exceed 50 years. Then it's only natural that many people take the opportunity to modify buildings when they have to tear things up to replace plumbing, etc.
If I were to build a house "built to last". Well...
First of all, I would buy or design a building that's "built to use." Not "built to sell" or "built to brag," like many of today's newly produced small houses seem to be. I believe that many of the floor plans and installation solutions being built today will be "cursed words" in 15 years. Maybe spotlights, waterborne underfloor heating, wet rooms without the possibility to move fixed furniture and porcelain without damaging the waterproofing, etc.
I believe that the HSB-planned nuclear family villas of the 1970s have a functionality and layout that holds up surprisingly well over time. Which is probably not something that can be said of the many "dream houses" with open layouts and specialized features being built today. I would probably base my design on the "HSB-thinking" when designing the house.
Regarding materials and technologies, I would choose local materials and techniques that have been used for 10-15 years. Sufficiently tried and tested so that any long-term deficiencies would have been discovered, but still modern. I wouldn't dare to gamble on technologies and materials younger than 10 years. Passive houses and intricate ventilation solutions I would skip.
The basis for construction and technology would be: overcapacity in channels and load-bearing capability of the structure. Installations should be easily accessible and replaceable. About 10-20% overcapacity in the electrical panel, ventilation system, drainage. Water and drainage in shafts and installation channels. The same goes for most of the electricity. Probably not slab on grade, mainly to be able to inspect and replace drainage, etc.
The basis for maintenance and care would be that users have limited time, interest, and competence for maintenance and inspections. No solutions and technologies that require a lot of time at frequent intervals - i.e., nothing Gysinge style. Preferably a diagnostic system similar to cars. That is, the house indicates when there is something wrong to a reasonable extent.
Material and technology choices would be those that have a "reliable lifespan." That is, you can predict how long they should last.
Concrete examples would be a gable roof, two stories + cold attic, modest with windows, radiator-borne heating with the ability to change the "boiler" over time - i.e., a properly sized "boiler room" where everything from a pellet burner to a heat pump would fit.
Operationally, I would strive for good but not maximum energy savings, to minimize the risk of moisture and mold. The house would be designed so that moisture in walls and structures can dry out, at the expense of slightly higher energy consumption. There would probably be fireplaces and a chimney.
I probably settle on the idea of a wooden house. Mostly because I'm used to building and maintaining small wooden houses. Stone houses I've only worked with professionally, and then they are on a different scale than small houses.
If I were to build a house "built to last". Well...
First of all, I would buy or design a building that's "built to use." Not "built to sell" or "built to brag," like many of today's newly produced small houses seem to be. I believe that many of the floor plans and installation solutions being built today will be "cursed words" in 15 years. Maybe spotlights, waterborne underfloor heating, wet rooms without the possibility to move fixed furniture and porcelain without damaging the waterproofing, etc.
I believe that the HSB-planned nuclear family villas of the 1970s have a functionality and layout that holds up surprisingly well over time. Which is probably not something that can be said of the many "dream houses" with open layouts and specialized features being built today. I would probably base my design on the "HSB-thinking" when designing the house.
Regarding materials and technologies, I would choose local materials and techniques that have been used for 10-15 years. Sufficiently tried and tested so that any long-term deficiencies would have been discovered, but still modern. I wouldn't dare to gamble on technologies and materials younger than 10 years. Passive houses and intricate ventilation solutions I would skip.
The basis for construction and technology would be: overcapacity in channels and load-bearing capability of the structure. Installations should be easily accessible and replaceable. About 10-20% overcapacity in the electrical panel, ventilation system, drainage. Water and drainage in shafts and installation channels. The same goes for most of the electricity. Probably not slab on grade, mainly to be able to inspect and replace drainage, etc.
The basis for maintenance and care would be that users have limited time, interest, and competence for maintenance and inspections. No solutions and technologies that require a lot of time at frequent intervals - i.e., nothing Gysinge style. Preferably a diagnostic system similar to cars. That is, the house indicates when there is something wrong to a reasonable extent.
Material and technology choices would be those that have a "reliable lifespan." That is, you can predict how long they should last.
Concrete examples would be a gable roof, two stories + cold attic, modest with windows, radiator-borne heating with the ability to change the "boiler" over time - i.e., a properly sized "boiler room" where everything from a pellet burner to a heat pump would fit.
Operationally, I would strive for good but not maximum energy savings, to minimize the risk of moisture and mold. The house would be designed so that moisture in walls and structures can dry out, at the expense of slightly higher energy consumption. There would probably be fireplaces and a chimney.
I probably settle on the idea of a wooden house. Mostly because I'm used to building and maintaining small wooden houses. Stone houses I've only worked with professionally, and then they are on a different scale than small houses.
I agree with many of Fro's points.
What I would have focused a lot on would have been:
1. Solid, relatively homogeneous materials
2. Interchangeable technology/facilities.
3. Traditional aesthetics.
I would have built stone houses, either light concrete or EPS concrete with thick walls, coated with breathable plaster on both sides.
A heavy central wall with a chimney centrally placed in the house.
Ventilation with oversized channels, with FTX in the attic. Natural ventilation is actually the most sustainable without maintenance, but the possibility to filter the air together with the energy gain makes it feel best for me.
I would have placed the underfloor heating on top of the joist, not embedded. I had Flooreva in the previous house and I liked it.
Centrally located utility shaft where plumbing, electricity, and data can run and be vented out.
Also channels/shafts for water/sewage in the slab.
Slab on the ground with at least 400 mm insulation, probably Isodrän or similar.
Aluminum windows with extremely high-quality frames.
Exterior roof of strapped/folded galvanized sheet metal on top of triple layers of underlay felt.
Ecofiber as top insulation.
Wood floors, only oiled. Requires maintenance but contains no strange chemicals. Stone floors, set in mortar, no self-leveling compound.
What I would have focused a lot on would have been:
1. Solid, relatively homogeneous materials
2. Interchangeable technology/facilities.
3. Traditional aesthetics.
I would have built stone houses, either light concrete or EPS concrete with thick walls, coated with breathable plaster on both sides.
A heavy central wall with a chimney centrally placed in the house.
Ventilation with oversized channels, with FTX in the attic. Natural ventilation is actually the most sustainable without maintenance, but the possibility to filter the air together with the energy gain makes it feel best for me.
I would have placed the underfloor heating on top of the joist, not embedded. I had Flooreva in the previous house and I liked it.
Centrally located utility shaft where plumbing, electricity, and data can run and be vented out.
Also channels/shafts for water/sewage in the slab.
Slab on the ground with at least 400 mm insulation, probably Isodrän or similar.
Aluminum windows with extremely high-quality frames.
Exterior roof of strapped/folded galvanized sheet metal on top of triple layers of underlay felt.
Ecofiber as top insulation.
Wood floors, only oiled. Requires maintenance but contains no strange chemicals. Stone floors, set in mortar, no self-leveling compound.
If we say slab on ground and assume it lasts for XX years then it is depreciated, if the frame or at least the part that lies against the slab is made of steel, one could easily "lift the entire house from the slab and cast a new one underneath.
With some forethought regarding the connections (like plumbing & electricity) between the house and the slab, in my opinion, it shouldn't be a problem to "lift the house" in a few weeks.
With some forethought regarding the connections (like plumbing & electricity) between the house and the slab, in my opinion, it shouldn't be a problem to "lift the house" in a few weeks.
My idea is to start with a concrete basement. The basement should have a ceiling height of at least 2.2 meters. There you can have a boiler/utility room, laundry room with drying room, water filter, food storage/pantry. You can also have a shower and sauna if you wish, or why not a small garage-like space? Entrance directly to the basement. But no recreation room or any other type of furnishings.
Imagine two chimneys symmetrically placed, but slightly larger, about 1.2 meters in square. These are built up to above the roof (13 meters?). Then add two wooden floors on this, with solid exterior walls, possibly with insulation in the gap and inner paneling in raw board. Outside with windproof paper and a wooden facade or plastered.
The floors are made with lightweight wooden beams, hung in the outer wall and the glued beam that goes between the chimneys and out on the short sides of the house. The lightweight beam should allow for running plumbing and electricity in the cavities. Beam height about 40 cm? The underside of the beam is nailed to the ceiling, and flooring is laid on top. If the beams are spaced 300 mm center-to-center, you should be able to lay tiles on top without further ado, maybe even support a well-placed tiled stove? Interior walls are nailed between the floor and ceiling where you feel like it, and the flooring is laid within the walls.
The utility shafts should contain everything possible, preferably large enough to crawl through for inspection and easy rerouting, I imagine you should be able to splice both electricity and water there without risking anything.
Is it completely bizarre to prepare for a wheelchair-accessible elevator in a shaft? Probably costs a small fortune.
I am not a structural engineer, and I don't even pretend to be one on the Internet, so much of the above may be complete nonsense.
I haven't considered the acoustics, but maybe that's not a big issue in a single-family house?
Imagine two chimneys symmetrically placed, but slightly larger, about 1.2 meters in square. These are built up to above the roof (13 meters?). Then add two wooden floors on this, with solid exterior walls, possibly with insulation in the gap and inner paneling in raw board. Outside with windproof paper and a wooden facade or plastered.
The floors are made with lightweight wooden beams, hung in the outer wall and the glued beam that goes between the chimneys and out on the short sides of the house. The lightweight beam should allow for running plumbing and electricity in the cavities. Beam height about 40 cm? The underside of the beam is nailed to the ceiling, and flooring is laid on top. If the beams are spaced 300 mm center-to-center, you should be able to lay tiles on top without further ado, maybe even support a well-placed tiled stove? Interior walls are nailed between the floor and ceiling where you feel like it, and the flooring is laid within the walls.
The utility shafts should contain everything possible, preferably large enough to crawl through for inspection and easy rerouting, I imagine you should be able to splice both electricity and water there without risking anything.
Is it completely bizarre to prepare for a wheelchair-accessible elevator in a shaft? Probably costs a small fortune.
I am not a structural engineer, and I don't even pretend to be one on the Internet, so much of the above may be complete nonsense.
I haven't considered the acoustics, but maybe that's not a big issue in a single-family house?
There was a movie with Ingvar Hirdvall where he had an elevator. Super cool. In the movie, he also bricked up all the windows and doors and waited for the big doomsday...