Just as the thread starter pointed out, stone houses are synonymous with lightweight concrete.
Regarding heat: A wooden house heats up much faster, but it requires more maintenance heat to stay warm. A stone house stores heat, meaning that once the house has warmed up, less maintenance heat is required to keep it warm. Lilla_vargen writes that "in winter, the summer heat is gone." A house is never self-warming under our winter conditions. Of course, heat must be added, but the question is how much energy is needed to keep the house warm. Since the stone stores heat, heating costs are reduced. The slowness of the stone's heat management results in a house that stays cooler in the summer. It doesn't heat up as quickly from solar heat.
Regarding sound: Again, at the risk of being overly explicit ;D. To understand why a stone house is quiet, one must understand how sound waves work. Sound waves are generated as air waves and escalate through resonance amplification. Anyone who has walked through a Hjältevad house can clearly hear what a resonance box does to a house. Insulating interior walls doesn't make much difference for sound, which seems to be a common misconception among home manufacturers who like to use it as an argument. The only thing that really reduces indoor sound in a wooden house is double wall panels. Similarly, sound is only marginally reduced in floor structures with insulation; it requires 2-3 layers of ceiling plaster to lower the sound volume from the upper floor. In a wooden house, sound waves can travel from one end of the house to the other, constantly escalating through increased vibration in the house's resonance boxes. In houses constructed in box systems, such as Hjältevad, this becomes even more apparent since these houses are essentially built as a number of interconnected speakers. To reduce sound in a house, non-vibrating materials and "interruption surfaces" between resonance layers are needed. You can never achieve a vibration-free wooden house, but by breaking up the layers, you can reduce sound. Hence, double panels in walls have a greater effect than insulation. A stone house, however, is non-vibrating and can never vibrate; therefore, the sound dissipates and does not spread in the construction. The house becomes quiet. However, the silence can be ruined by incorporating sound-generating layers. Laminate flooring on the upper floor of a house with stone floor structures will be heard on the lower floor. With a proper wooden floor, not a footstep can be heard. For the same reason, you should never mount the heat pump or washing machine on an interior wall, etc.
Regarding moisture damage: Again, at the risk of being overly explicit ;D. The walls of a stone house are always moist, does that mean you feel the moisture when you place your hand on the wall? No, it doesn't, because the walls are not wet; they just have a slightly higher moisture content that is constant. Wood moves constantly, absorbs moisture, and dries out. This is why it is better to build a wooden house in winter when it's dry outside than in summer when it's humid. We all know that stagnant moisture in organic material will eventually rot. Stone can never rot, and the material breathes because there is no encapsulation. No plastic, no moisture barriers, no other disasters. Just as Flaxes' father and father-in-law say, "never mix dead and living materials." This is why you have to be careful about installing a wooden façade on a stone house, wooden floor structures, or even wooden trusses. The organic material will eventually rot because it constantly absorbs moisture from the stone structure.
Why would there be rot damage in other materials, and I quote: "mold in wallpaper, furniture, cabinet interiors, parquet floors, etc."? I don't even understand the comment because the prerequisite for rot damage is that the moisture is encapsulated and not ventilated, which is not the case with cabinet interiors, furniture, etc.
Instead, the stone's ability to breathe and retain moisture provides a more stable and better indoor climate.
Regarding heat: A wooden house heats up much faster, but it requires more maintenance heat to stay warm. A stone house stores heat, meaning that once the house has warmed up, less maintenance heat is required to keep it warm. Lilla_vargen writes that "in winter, the summer heat is gone." A house is never self-warming under our winter conditions. Of course, heat must be added, but the question is how much energy is needed to keep the house warm. Since the stone stores heat, heating costs are reduced. The slowness of the stone's heat management results in a house that stays cooler in the summer. It doesn't heat up as quickly from solar heat.
Regarding sound: Again, at the risk of being overly explicit ;D. To understand why a stone house is quiet, one must understand how sound waves work. Sound waves are generated as air waves and escalate through resonance amplification. Anyone who has walked through a Hjältevad house can clearly hear what a resonance box does to a house. Insulating interior walls doesn't make much difference for sound, which seems to be a common misconception among home manufacturers who like to use it as an argument. The only thing that really reduces indoor sound in a wooden house is double wall panels. Similarly, sound is only marginally reduced in floor structures with insulation; it requires 2-3 layers of ceiling plaster to lower the sound volume from the upper floor. In a wooden house, sound waves can travel from one end of the house to the other, constantly escalating through increased vibration in the house's resonance boxes. In houses constructed in box systems, such as Hjältevad, this becomes even more apparent since these houses are essentially built as a number of interconnected speakers. To reduce sound in a house, non-vibrating materials and "interruption surfaces" between resonance layers are needed. You can never achieve a vibration-free wooden house, but by breaking up the layers, you can reduce sound. Hence, double panels in walls have a greater effect than insulation. A stone house, however, is non-vibrating and can never vibrate; therefore, the sound dissipates and does not spread in the construction. The house becomes quiet. However, the silence can be ruined by incorporating sound-generating layers. Laminate flooring on the upper floor of a house with stone floor structures will be heard on the lower floor. With a proper wooden floor, not a footstep can be heard. For the same reason, you should never mount the heat pump or washing machine on an interior wall, etc.
Regarding moisture damage: Again, at the risk of being overly explicit ;D. The walls of a stone house are always moist, does that mean you feel the moisture when you place your hand on the wall? No, it doesn't, because the walls are not wet; they just have a slightly higher moisture content that is constant. Wood moves constantly, absorbs moisture, and dries out. This is why it is better to build a wooden house in winter when it's dry outside than in summer when it's humid. We all know that stagnant moisture in organic material will eventually rot. Stone can never rot, and the material breathes because there is no encapsulation. No plastic, no moisture barriers, no other disasters. Just as Flaxes' father and father-in-law say, "never mix dead and living materials." This is why you have to be careful about installing a wooden façade on a stone house, wooden floor structures, or even wooden trusses. The organic material will eventually rot because it constantly absorbs moisture from the stone structure.
Why would there be rot damage in other materials, and I quote: "mold in wallpaper, furniture, cabinet interiors, parquet floors, etc."? I don't even understand the comment because the prerequisite for rot damage is that the moisture is encapsulated and not ventilated, which is not the case with cabinet interiors, furniture, etc.
Instead, the stone's ability to breathe and retain moisture provides a more stable and better indoor climate.
Wait a minute... Something is wrong here. Stone is not always damp at all. If it were, it would be impossible to have, for instance, parquet flooring...Fru Lind said:
It might be slower, but once the house gets warm on that hot July day, it is impossible as hell to get it cool at night. Rather, it will get cool in the house a couple of months later if it's warm all the time.Fru Lind said:
And for God's sake, make sure to keep the house warm during a power outage in the winter - once it gets cold, it will want to stay cold too...Exactly right. Who wants to live in a plastic bag?Fru Lind said:
I do not agree with that. A rigid stone house transmits vibrations just as well as a wooden one. It's more about how you design the floors and walls.Fru Lind said:
I base it on the following post in the thread "Miscellaneous/Other/Ecolabel houses? Share your thoughts!":
"If material and energy consumption are to be some of the parameters in the Nordic Swan ecolabeling of houses, concrete house manufacturers might have a hard time getting in. I think the information in the article at the link below is very interesting in this regard.
http://www.skogstrafacket.org/home/skogstra/home.nsf/files/64DD2AAC31510 37841256A0E002D9B0B?OpenDocument"
"If material and energy consumption are to be some of the parameters in the Nordic Swan ecolabeling of houses, concrete house manufacturers might have a hard time getting in. I think the information in the article at the link below is very interesting in this regard.
http://www.skogstrafacket.org/home/skogstra/home.nsf/files/64DD2AAC31510 37841256A0E002D9B0B?OpenDocument"
No, you don't encapsulate furniture and wallpapers, but on the other hand, I've never heard of encapsulated roof trusses either. Please explain more to me, as you seem to be knowledgeable about this!Fru Lind said:
Hmm, seems to be a saga here..Niklas L said:
I don't quite agree that it is better for residents in a concrete villa. A fire usually spreads through smoke and not because the walls start to burn! In a house, the smoke will spread around the house through, for example, doors and ventilation openings. However, in multi-family houses where the apartments/rooms are not connected in any way, it can protect, but not in a normal villa unless you have fire doors between each room (which you don't).
The fire, or rather, the smoke, spreads just as easily in a wooden house as in a concrete house.
Yes, it's possible that smoke can spread in a stone house.markis said:
If I put it this way: Outer walls made of stone won't start burning. So the risk is lower that a fire spreads from or to a stone house. So if there's a car, trash can, torch, or something else blazing right next to a stone house, it doesn't matter (apart from maybe getting a bit sooty, and you should still probably call 112...). Do I have a point now?
Note that I'm not taking a stance for or against anything right now. I am immensely grateful for all tips and ideas. It can definitely become a serial for me, as long as there's substance...
By the way: Lilla_Vargen, your link isn't working due to the line break.
Edit: Spelling mistake...
You have a point there. But....Niklas L said:If I say it like this: Stone exterior walls don't catch fire. Therefore, the risk is less that a fire spreads from or to a stone house. Do I have a point now?
Note that I'm not taking a stand for or against anything right now. I am hugely grateful for all tips and ideas.
...the risk of fire from the outside is very small - most fires start indoors, often from TVs or computer monitors.Despite the risk that this becomes much about fires (maybe should start another thread), there are other questions to consider. For example, a single-story house is easier to evacuate than a house with bedrooms on the second floor. Maybe windows should open outward and not be pivot-hung (or whatever they're called ??? ). You can choose furnishings that don't emit as many toxic gases, etc.
Regarding stone houses, I have no stance for or against. I appreciate Mrs. Lind's post!
We live in an old apartment now and really enjoy the thick sturdy walls, high ceilings, and how quiet it is. We're a bit afraid it won't feel as stable and might be noisier in a wooden house with inner wood walls.It's just such a shame that more house suppliers don't offer a greater variety of house types and heating technologies. 95% go with wooden houses and exhaust air heat pumps with electric heaters.
Imagine if, for example, A-hus had a sister company that had catalog houses built, for example, with light concrete and solar heating as standard! ;D
Maybe a bit off-topic (but it is "my" thread...):markis said:
Spot on! An Edsviken in aerated concrete, with solar heating would be wonderful! How is it that the house companies seem to think that most people really want to follow standard A1, or have the money, interest, and time to get architect-designed? (Rhetorical question, otherwise it becomes very off-topic)
Edit: Addition in parentheses.
Now I think the discussion has become very focused on the fire aspect!! I believe that those who ultimately choose to build with stone don't mainly do so because of the reduced fire risk, after all, villa fires are not that common!!!! in that case, heating economy is much more interesting, don’t you agree?
Would like to have different options for the treatment of interior walls,
if one doesn't want painted stone walls, what other possibilities are there??
:-/
Would like to have different options for the treatment of interior walls,
if one doesn't want painted stone walls, what other possibilities are there??
:-/
Exactly!MoH said:
But the less that can burn in a house, the better.
It's interesting to read this thread, why do I get the feeling of seeing this almost like a religious war?
Personally, I believe stone houses are preferable to other building materials, but I also see certain advantages with wood. However, I agree that we have a too uniform house-building industry here in Sweden, which is almost exclusively focused on wood.
This could be one of the reasons for the higher price level for stone houses. Several players starting with stone should be able to influence competition and price levels.
I can say that there seem to be some parallels with the computer world. I am a Mac user and feel that I have something in common with stone house builders... Sleek, secure, stable, but a bit more expensive... Windows people buy the supplier's solution hook, line, and sinker, and Linux types build with loose timber, preferably from their own cut forest... ;DBoByggarn said:
(Note that there's some generalization here and a certain amount of irony. I don't think we should delve into that topic - there's enough of both religious and computer wars already.)
But if we leave the fire issue, despite it being interesting; please give me more arguments for stone versus wood. Environmental and energy issues were brought up a little, but seem to have disappeared. Miss Lind has promised to return, and Lilla_Varhgen referred to something the forest trade union said (but they can hardly be accused of being completely objective in the stone/wood issue
).
That doesn't hold up... I've been using a Mac for a long time (still have a PowerBook which, admittedly, hasn't been on for a year now), but now have a PC running Windows, have never been interested in Linux, and build wooden frame houses...Niklas L said: