Hello!
New to the forum, perhaps I should introduce myself a bit: My name is Niklas. My partner and I would like to move out of our two-room apartment of 64 sqm to something larger in the countryside. Fortunately, I have a plot about a mile outside Uppsala. The apartment is currently full of house catalogs, and we have found some favorites (like A-hus Edsviken, Willa Nordics Kardborren), but we are also sketching a bit ourselves. I've been lurking here a bit, and following the discussions with great interest, and now I thought I'd pose a question of my own.
To get to the point: Considering building a stone house (specifically lightweight concrete), but it doesn't seem very common. For instance, I haven't managed to find any stone house manufacturers that have standard houses; it always seems to involve architect-designed ones, which sounds expensive for us with normal incomes... The question is why stone houses are uncommon, they seem to have many good qualities. Yes, I have read the Lightweight Concrete Handbook, but it may not be entirely objective... I hope the expertise here can explain the main differences between wood and stone. Pros and cons? Economy? I am of average handiness (and as stingy as can be
), can I do more myself with one material over the other? For us, the environmental aspect is important; who wins there?
Many questions, hoping to get some answers.
Edit: Spelling and clarifications
New to the forum, perhaps I should introduce myself a bit: My name is Niklas. My partner and I would like to move out of our two-room apartment of 64 sqm to something larger in the countryside. Fortunately, I have a plot about a mile outside Uppsala. The apartment is currently full of house catalogs, and we have found some favorites (like A-hus Edsviken, Willa Nordics Kardborren), but we are also sketching a bit ourselves. I've been lurking here a bit, and following the discussions with great interest, and now I thought I'd pose a question of my own.
To get to the point: Considering building a stone house (specifically lightweight concrete), but it doesn't seem very common. For instance, I haven't managed to find any stone house manufacturers that have standard houses; it always seems to involve architect-designed ones, which sounds expensive for us with normal incomes... The question is why stone houses are uncommon, they seem to have many good qualities. Yes, I have read the Lightweight Concrete Handbook, but it may not be entirely objective... I hope the expertise here can explain the main differences between wood and stone. Pros and cons? Economy? I am of average handiness (and as stingy as can be
), can I do more myself with one material over the other? For us, the environmental aspect is important; who wins there?Many questions, hoping to get some answers.
Edit: Spelling and clarifications
Oops! here comes another one in the group! We have been searching for a wooden house supplier for a couple of months, but have had to wait veeeery long for quotes, so in the meantime, we have also become very interested in the advantages of lightweight concrete! It seems that the stone house suppliers you see here on the internet mostly build in Skåne! Örementhus for example seems great, but only builds south of Växjö.
Is there anyone who has been in contact with a stone house supplier in central Sweden?
We have a couple of quotes for our self-designed wooden house; does anyone have a hint about what the difference might be in stone?
Now there are several of us hoping for your answers!!!
Is there anyone who has been in contact with a stone house supplier in central Sweden?
We have a couple of quotes for our self-designed wooden house; does anyone have a hint about what the difference might be in stone?
Now there are several of us hoping for your answers!!!
Don't know if this will make you any wiser but...
Wood is a living material. Even when you've driven a few 4" nails straight through the poor planks. With some saws, drills, etc., I can do whatever I want with wood. If I need to replace a plank on the facade, I can do that.
How many can plaster their own house (and be satisfied with the result)? Well, there are more of us who can service wooden houses...
More work with wood? If I live here until I die, at worst I'll need to repaint 8 times. Manageable.
But most importantly - taste is like the backside. I can appreciate a well-maintained stone house, but for me, it's wood all the way.
Wood is a living material. Even when you've driven a few 4" nails straight through the poor planks. With some saws, drills, etc., I can do whatever I want with wood. If I need to replace a plank on the facade, I can do that.
How many can plaster their own house (and be satisfied with the result)? Well, there are more of us who can service wooden houses...
More work with wood? If I live here until I die, at worst I'll need to repaint 8 times. Manageable.
But most importantly - taste is like the backside. I can appreciate a well-maintained stone house, but for me, it's wood all the way.
Hello!
We are building a stone house on our own since, just like you said, there aren't many players in the stone house market Besides, they are very expensive!!! We contacted Örementhus and were almost fainting when we got a price example for a house we could imagine.
Initially, we planned to buy a wooden house with a stucco facade from a regular house company. Since we live in Skåne in a cultural protection area, we need to have a stucco or brick facade. Well, after discussions with my father and father-in-law, who have been in the construction industry for about 40 years, we were immediately dismissed as these gentlemen definitely do not recommend plastering a wooden frame. You should not mix living and dead materials... So instead, we've had to establish all contacts ourselves to reduce the cost of a stone house we have designed ourselves.
The advantages of the stone house are, of course, the painting ;D but also the damn humidity in Skåne that makes everything mold and rot... Moreover, it is one of the only materials that is allergy-friendly, cannot mold, and offers energy efficiency because it stores heat in a beneficial way. And the fact that we love old stone houses that have stood in the same place for hundreds of years makes us like it even more. Hopefully, our house will also stand there in about 200 years ;D
We are building a stone house on our own since, just like you said, there aren't many players in the stone house market
Besides, they are very expensive!!! We contacted Örementhus and were almost fainting when we got a price example for a house we could imagine.Initially, we planned to buy a wooden house with a stucco facade from a regular house company. Since we live in Skåne in a cultural protection area, we need to have a stucco or brick facade. Well, after discussions with my father and father-in-law, who have been in the construction industry for about 40 years, we were immediately dismissed as these gentlemen definitely do not recommend plastering a wooden frame. You should not mix living and dead materials... So instead, we've had to establish all contacts ourselves to reduce the cost of a stone house we have designed ourselves.
The advantages of the stone house are, of course, the painting ;D but also the damn humidity in Skåne that makes everything mold and rot... Moreover, it is one of the only materials that is allergy-friendly, cannot mold, and offers energy efficiency because it stores heat in a beneficial way. And the fact that we love old stone houses that have stood in the same place for hundreds of years makes us like it even more. Hopefully, our house will also stand there in about 200 years ;D
We are inclined to build stone houses and have looked around quite a bit. There are two types of stone houses: genuine stone houses with self-insulating walls, i.e., lightweight concrete blocks with approximately 30-45 cm wall thickness (depending on where you live). The other variant has thinner stone and insulation; the latter takes away many of the advantages of a stone house.
A stone house can never burn, become moldy, water-damaged, infested by pests, or suffer from other unpleasant things. Additionally, it stores heat, making it warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer.
The material itself is cheap; we have received a quote of 120,000 for stone for a 2-story house of 280 sqm.
So why are stone houses built so poorly? I believe it's a building tradition developed from local materials. In Skåne, you build quite a few stone houses, but in Småland, wood has been a more easily workable material, and we have developed a wooden house tradition. In Finland, many stone houses are built, often in self-build projects. A turnkey stone house is about 20-30% more expensive than a wooden house, and the figure increases with the height of the house. If you can do the masonry yourself, the cost is a fraction because it's not the stone that costs. One of the suppliers we've discussed with believes that three inexperienced people and a small crane can build a 2-story stone house in 14 days. We're counting on three months ;D
We have mainly looked at Ytong and Celcon, the latter of which seems cheapest and has slightly more interesting features in its systems.
If we build a stone house, we will not order it through an architect/house company. However, we will take help from an architect to calculate the house and correct any technical problems in our drawings. The cheapest option is to order the materials directly from the factories.
Nowadays, there are fine lightweight concrete systems that include both floor joists and self-supporting trusses. This way, you avoid mixing wood and stone, considering that the stone is always moist you will eventually get rot damage even if you moisture-proof the joists.
The only drawbacks we have found are the weight. We are thinking of building a two-story house with a building area of approximately 150 sqm + terraces. The solution will probably be a basement floor, which we are considering anyway. With stone houses, it becomes a very small additional cost.
Apart from the advantages mentioned above, the indoor climate is one of the most important factors for us. With the right type of heating system, you can get a very energy-efficient house. What we pay per month for heating and hot water in our current house, we will pay per year if the calculations hold.
We also do not like the idea of living in an "environment bubble" surrounded by glass fibers, rock wool, and other questionable materials. ;D
The big advantage: A stone house is QUIET...
No noise from the intermediate floor, no echoing footsteps, no heat pump heard throughout half the house. It's possible to make a stone house completely silent.
A stone house can never burn, become moldy, water-damaged, infested by pests, or suffer from other unpleasant things. Additionally, it stores heat, making it warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer.
The material itself is cheap; we have received a quote of 120,000 for stone for a 2-story house of 280 sqm.
So why are stone houses built so poorly? I believe it's a building tradition developed from local materials. In Skåne, you build quite a few stone houses, but in Småland, wood has been a more easily workable material, and we have developed a wooden house tradition. In Finland, many stone houses are built, often in self-build projects. A turnkey stone house is about 20-30% more expensive than a wooden house, and the figure increases with the height of the house. If you can do the masonry yourself, the cost is a fraction because it's not the stone that costs. One of the suppliers we've discussed with believes that three inexperienced people and a small crane can build a 2-story stone house in 14 days. We're counting on three months ;D
We have mainly looked at Ytong and Celcon, the latter of which seems cheapest and has slightly more interesting features in its systems.
If we build a stone house, we will not order it through an architect/house company. However, we will take help from an architect to calculate the house and correct any technical problems in our drawings. The cheapest option is to order the materials directly from the factories.
Nowadays, there are fine lightweight concrete systems that include both floor joists and self-supporting trusses. This way, you avoid mixing wood and stone, considering that the stone is always moist you will eventually get rot damage even if you moisture-proof the joists.
The only drawbacks we have found are the weight. We are thinking of building a two-story house with a building area of approximately 150 sqm + terraces. The solution will probably be a basement floor, which we are considering anyway. With stone houses, it becomes a very small additional cost.
Apart from the advantages mentioned above, the indoor climate is one of the most important factors for us. With the right type of heating system, you can get a very energy-efficient house. What we pay per month for heating and hot water in our current house, we will pay per year if the calculations hold.
We also do not like the idea of living in an "environment bubble" surrounded by glass fibers, rock wool, and other questionable materials. ;D
The big advantage: A stone house is QUIET...
No noise from the intermediate floor, no echoing footsteps, no heat pump heard throughout half the house. It's possible to make a stone house completely silent.
Thank you very much for the nice and informative answers!
I'm becoming more interested in stone, and would love to have more info... Tips on companies, more wood/stone arguments, sensible web addresses, more of everything! ;D
Jureit: There must be some reason why insurance companies have lower premiums for stone houses, but completely ignore concrete furniture...
Edit: all letters should be included, and in the right order...
I'm becoming more interested in stone, and would love to have more info... Tips on companies, more wood/stone arguments, sensible web addresses, more of everything! ;D
Jureit: There must be some reason why insurance companies have lower premiums for stone houses, but completely ignore concrete furniture...
Edit: all letters should be included, and in the right order...
Perfect! Sofa frame made of leca and padding of mineral wool! What should it be upholstered with? Recycled fabric from the rescue service's overalls? ;Djureit said:
Even though we build wooden houses (or rather wood, air, and gypsum), I can see the appeal of, for example, Siporex as a material, but not everyone has the luxury of building a house that is 20-30% more expensive.
In our residential area, perhaps 4 out of 30 houses are Siporex.
Jämerä has some cool models though:
http://www.jamera.fi/talomallit/valikko.htm
In our residential area, perhaps 4 out of 30 houses are Siporex.
Jämerä has some cool models though:
http://www.jamera.fi/talomallit/valikko.htm
Many mention that stone houses are more expensive. My simple follow-up question is why? If the material is fairly cheap, shouldn't one be able to save on hired labor and do the masonry work oneself? Despite being all thumbs, I've managed to bricklay and plaster a boiler room for a grain dryer, and it's still standing...
Mrs. Lind mentions that the weight is a problem. I realize that stone weighs quite a bit, but shouldn't that just make the building sturdier? Is it about floor structures not being able to support themselves, or does the house sink into the ground under its own weight (I intend to build on clay soil...)? I also don't understand how a basement can solve the weight problem. Please explain.
Regarding "burning" (great term!), I really have no idea either. My theory is that a stone house doesn't burn up (down?) in the same way as a wooden one, so a fire should find it much harder to spread to other rooms, floors, or adjacent houses. Of course, it's not healthy to be inside a fully engulfed house, regardless of whether the structure itself is burning or not; but many fires start when no one is home, and in most other cases, fortunately, the inhabitants manage to get out in time.
Mrs. Lind mentions that the weight is a problem. I realize that stone weighs quite a bit, but shouldn't that just make the building sturdier? Is it about floor structures not being able to support themselves, or does the house sink into the ground under its own weight (I intend to build on clay soil...)? I also don't understand how a basement can solve the weight problem. Please explain.
Regarding "burning" (great term!), I really have no idea either. My theory is that a stone house doesn't burn up (down?) in the same way as a wooden one, so a fire should find it much harder to spread to other rooms, floors, or adjacent houses. Of course, it's not healthy to be inside a fully engulfed house, regardless of whether the structure itself is burning or not; but many fires start when no one is home, and in most other cases, fortunately, the inhabitants manage to get out in time.
Regarding "brinneriet": Fire and moisture damage are the two main factors why stone houses are cheaper to insure, according to our insurance company. If you build a stone house with interior walls in wood, the house will be burned out in a fire. If you build a real stone house with interior walls in stone, only the furnishings can burn. Getting out of the house is equally difficult regardless of the material in the house, but if you manage to get out, you have more than the chimney stack left in a stone house. Barely even that with a modern chimney... However, a guess is that it takes longer for the fire to take hold, which should increase the chances of getting out of the house. I assume everyone uses smoke detectors. ;D
Regarding costs: A stone house becomes significantly cheaper than a wooden house if you can manage to build it yourself. It should be noted that aerated concrete blocks and lecablocks are two completely different things. Technically, aerated concrete blocks are glued, not built with mortar. If you are inexperienced in masonry, the problem arises with the consistency of the mortar. Either it takes too long to dry, dries too fast, or becomes unstable. The mortar surface becomes thicker, and an inexperienced builder finds it difficult to spread it in even layers. The advantage of the glue is that it is pre-mixed, applied relatively thin, and is more manageable for the inexperienced. If you are reasonably handy and persistent, there are no problems. I have not built with aerated concrete blocks myself, but I have built with leca foundations and bricks.
Regarding weight: At the risk of being overly clear. ;D A 2-story stone house will be heavier than a corresponding wooden house. The interesting thing is the ground pressure. A stone house does not settle in the same way as a wooden house because the stone does not move, unlike wood. If a wooden house settles a bit, it is not noticeable; if a stone house settles, you have a problem, and they can be difficult to fix. So what we strive for is to have as low ground pressure per sqm so that the ground can support it. A stone house on piers sinks like a stone ;D The deeper we go into the ground, the more pressure-resistant the ground becomes because it supports the clay above it. It has already settled for a higher pressure, so to speak. We have a lot with hard-packed clay, where it is normally not a problem to have a smaller (170 sqm) 1 1/2-story wooden house float with a slab on the ground. Now we will build a larger house, 250-280 sqm. We found two alternative solutions. Either piling, which costs approx. 50-70,000 with 10-meter piles and one pile per 10 sqm base area. Since clay is heavy, it weighs more than the house construction. By excavating a basement, you remove more weight in clay than you add in the weight of the house. In practice, the ground pressure only increases by "weight house"-"weight clay," which with the "right" ground conditions can become a positive equation. Additionally, the foundation becomes more stable as the lateral pressure stabilizes the house. The cost of the slab is the same whether we build a basement or not. Provided we build it ourselves, the increased cost for stone, ground insulation, and intermediate floors is marginally higher than the cost of piling. Additionally, we increase the area by 50%. Where the weight limits are to be forced to pile a stone house, a foundation expert can better answer.
Regarding costs: A stone house becomes significantly cheaper than a wooden house if you can manage to build it yourself. It should be noted that aerated concrete blocks and lecablocks are two completely different things. Technically, aerated concrete blocks are glued, not built with mortar. If you are inexperienced in masonry, the problem arises with the consistency of the mortar. Either it takes too long to dry, dries too fast, or becomes unstable. The mortar surface becomes thicker, and an inexperienced builder finds it difficult to spread it in even layers. The advantage of the glue is that it is pre-mixed, applied relatively thin, and is more manageable for the inexperienced. If you are reasonably handy and persistent, there are no problems. I have not built with aerated concrete blocks myself, but I have built with leca foundations and bricks.
Regarding weight: At the risk of being overly clear. ;D A 2-story stone house will be heavier than a corresponding wooden house. The interesting thing is the ground pressure. A stone house does not settle in the same way as a wooden house because the stone does not move, unlike wood. If a wooden house settles a bit, it is not noticeable; if a stone house settles, you have a problem, and they can be difficult to fix. So what we strive for is to have as low ground pressure per sqm so that the ground can support it. A stone house on piers sinks like a stone ;D The deeper we go into the ground, the more pressure-resistant the ground becomes because it supports the clay above it. It has already settled for a higher pressure, so to speak. We have a lot with hard-packed clay, where it is normally not a problem to have a smaller (170 sqm) 1 1/2-story wooden house float with a slab on the ground. Now we will build a larger house, 250-280 sqm. We found two alternative solutions. Either piling, which costs approx. 50-70,000 with 10-meter piles and one pile per 10 sqm base area. Since clay is heavy, it weighs more than the house construction. By excavating a basement, you remove more weight in clay than you add in the weight of the house. In practice, the ground pressure only increases by "weight house"-"weight clay," which with the "right" ground conditions can become a positive equation. Additionally, the foundation becomes more stable as the lateral pressure stabilizes the house. The cost of the slab is the same whether we build a basement or not. Provided we build it ourselves, the increased cost for stone, ground insulation, and intermediate floors is marginally higher than the cost of piling. Additionally, we increase the area by 50%. Where the weight limits are to be forced to pile a stone house, a foundation expert can better answer.
This is an interesting discussion! Some viewpoints and questions:
Concrete is environmentally unfriendly, and gluing together the house doesn’t seem particularly eco-friendly either.
Mrs. Lind writes that stone is always damp, and even if you use a moisture barrier, you will eventually get moisture damage in wooden beams. In that case, wouldn't you also get moisture damage = mold in wallpaper, furniture, cabinet interiors, parquet floors, etc.?
Stone stores both heat and cold, right? So the house becomes warmer in the fall and cooler in the spring. By winter, the summer heat is probably gone. On the other hand, a wooden house is quick to heat, so on a sunny winter day, it can become very warm inside.
Even if genuine stone stores heat, I wonder if leca/lightweight concrete and the like do the same?
And surely footsteps and heat pumps echo just as much in a stone house as in a wooden house (provided there is insulation in the interior walls, and there is)? It’s really about how much soft material (which can absorb sound) you have in the interior and how large the open spaces are?
Thanks for a good explanation regarding the weight!
Concrete is environmentally unfriendly, and gluing together the house doesn’t seem particularly eco-friendly either.
Mrs. Lind writes that stone is always damp, and even if you use a moisture barrier, you will eventually get moisture damage in wooden beams. In that case, wouldn't you also get moisture damage = mold in wallpaper, furniture, cabinet interiors, parquet floors, etc.?
Stone stores both heat and cold, right? So the house becomes warmer in the fall and cooler in the spring. By winter, the summer heat is probably gone. On the other hand, a wooden house is quick to heat, so on a sunny winter day, it can become very warm inside.
Even if genuine stone stores heat, I wonder if leca/lightweight concrete and the like do the same?
And surely footsteps and heat pumps echo just as much in a stone house as in a wooden house (provided there is insulation in the interior walls, and there is
)? It’s really about how much soft material (which can absorb sound) you have in the interior and how large the open spaces are?Thanks for a good explanation regarding the weight!
There is probably no reason to nag, I don't think there was anyone who didn't understand the first time.jureit said:
Most people surely understand that it is the smoke (smoke gases) and not the fire that is dangerous to people, so we completely agree on that.
However, I argue that the fire safety argument holds, primarily when it comes to the material, but to some extent also for the residents. A stone wall doesn't start to burn. Period. Thus, a fire has less chance to spread, which makes the stone house better from that perspective. But I would never dream of skipping the smoke alarm just because I live in a concrete house...
Then, of course, there is much more than fire safety to consider in a house, and no one lets this alone decide where to live. Then the houses would probably look very different, and Jonas Bohlin would have a whole new market...