Oh dear, there goes that theory. And I had been pondering it for so long...Bob_the_builder said:It doesn't hold... I've been using a Mac for a long time (I still have a Powerbook that admittedly hasn't been turned on for a year now), but now I have a PC running Windows, I've never been interested in Linux, and I build wooden (frame) houses...
No, the theory didn't completely fall!
I am very impressed with the simplicity of stone houses and also the Mac, I have 3 of them: a G4 at work, a G4 globe, and an iMac G3 at home!! (pc allergy)
I am very impressed with the simplicity of stone houses and also the Mac, I have 3 of them: a G4 at work, a G4 globe, and an iMac G3 at home!! (pc allergy)
*Thud*KarlXII said:Vroom.
You could almost hear when this thread drove into the ditch...
Sorry if I introduced a distraction, but it's my thread so I guess I have myself to blame. Can we try to get the thread out of the ditch again? The stone/wood question seems to interest many, so it shouldn't be completely impossible.
What about economy, ecology, energy, indoor climate, etc. in a stone house?
Let's get the thread back on track then!KarlXII said:Vroom.
You could almost hear when this thread veered off into the ditch...
There are some fundamental differences between stone and wooden houses. It's the building materials.
Everyone has probably heard more or less about sick building syndrome. It came a few years after the big energy crisis. Then all house manufacturers started overinsulating their houses, leading to all sorts of problems (mold, rot, poor ventilation...)
Many of these problems have now been addressed, and the wooden house manufacturers have dealt with the majority of these issues.
In the last century ;D blue concrete, which contains radon, was widely used. Not particularly pleasant. But in the aerated concrete products manufactured today, there is guaranteed no radon-containing material.
What am I trying to say with this, there is no clearly best choice, either today or tomorrow.
Personally, I believe that a stone house is more solid, provides a more pleasant indoor climate, and is quiet.
Anyone who thinks a wooden house can be as quiet (noise-dampening) as a stone house probably has a hearing problem
While stone houses come with an extra price premium, I think you can overcome that with some hands-on work.
By the way, I like to have space around me, high ceilings for example. In a wooden house, from those who supply prefabricated wall elements, your options are limited. They typically manage a maximum of 2.70, but 2.40 is standard.
If you build in stone, you just add one or more layers of stone, and you get your extra ceiling height.
What did you say? 8)BoByggarn said:Anyone who believes that a wooden house can be as quiet (noise-reducing) as a stone house probably has a hearing problem
No, honestly - I don't buy that a concrete house would be more soundproof than a wooden house. Before we moved here, we lived in a stone apartment building. You'd have to search to find a more noisy place. You could hear pretty much EVERYTHING from the neighbors. The house we live in now is much, much quieter.
It IS a matter of construction, not material.
BTW, we have between 3.60 and 7 meters ceiling height in the living room....
But of course, it's not a production house.
However, I often think that it's the building permits that limit the final ceiling height you can have.
No, I think it's just the feeling that determines which house you want. There are pros and cons to both options. We considered a betonhus before we finally went with a trähus, and that's something we don't regret. The trähus feels alive and open, a betonhus can feel a bit dead. Many appreciate that feeling... but I've finished living in a bunker.
But of course, it's not a production house.
However, I often think that it's the building permits that limit the final ceiling height you can have.
No, I think it's just the feeling that determines which house you want. There are pros and cons to both options. We considered a betonhus before we finally went with a trähus, and that's something we don't regret. The trähus feels alive and open, a betonhus can feel a bit dead. Many appreciate that feeling... but I've finished living in a bunker.
The stone house enthusiasts don't seem to be very active either...BoByggarn said:Sure, I think the wooden house advocates have run out of arguments...
I am grateful for the responses that have come in so far, it's been very interesting. But please continue to argue.
Now let's see if we can kick-start this thread again.Fru Lind said:
If Mrs. Lind's information is correct, then one should be able to build a stone house ridiculously cheaply (much cheaper than wood) as long as you can do the masonry yourself...
Or?
I don't know if it was ridiculously cheap, but
By removing all the networks, IHC, audio/video, and other frills, I built a lightweight concrete house (2000) of 208 m2 with an integrated garage, etc., for less money than the neighbors paid for their Älvsbyhus ODEN.
Then my father-in-law (who is a bricklayer) and I did all the masonry work + plastering. Additionally, I did all the flooring, painting, etc.
The masonry took 9 days.
The only thing I regret is not building the interior walls out of lightweight concrete as well.
The next house will definitely have a basement. Entirely made of stone, including roof/slabs.
As for me, I chose stone material because of its simplicity and because it was a significantly more flexible material. The fact that it's non-living and inorganic is only positive.
By removing all the networks, IHC, audio/video, and other frills, I built a lightweight concrete house (2000) of 208 m2 with an integrated garage, etc., for less money than the neighbors paid for their Älvsbyhus ODEN.
Then my father-in-law (who is a bricklayer) and I did all the masonry work + plastering. Additionally, I did all the flooring, painting, etc.
The masonry took 9 days.
The only thing I regret is not building the interior walls out of lightweight concrete as well.
The next house will definitely have a basement. Entirely made of stone, including roof/slabs.
As for me, I chose stone material because of its simplicity and because it was a significantly more flexible material. The fact that it's non-living and inorganic is only positive.
That sounds very interesting. Do you have more info on how you did it, what type of "stone" you used, if someone with a thumb strategically placed between the index and ring finger can manage it, etc.?TLovskog said:
I tried to access your websites to check, but there seems to be some knot in the string somewhere...