Use WOOD, the best you can find.
Also, some parts, might have phyto-archaeologicial interest, as they may
be even older than 100 years.
Maria-Stella
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Steven Bissell wrote:
> I need some advice. I own (well, the bank owns it, but I'm buying it a nail
> at a time) 100 year old home, mostly made of wood. Today we are cleaning
> windows and have noticed that the house will need a paint job in a year or
> so. Most of the wood siding is still in good shape, but a few have rotted
> and need replacement. My son suggested replacing all the siding with vinyl.
> I'm not sure, isn't vinyl a type of plastic?
>
> Anyway, for those of you oppose to the use of wood, what do you suggest I
> do? I mean really? Not pie in the sky "tear down the house and replace it
> with adobe" but what should I do? Use more wood or use vinyl?
> sb
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Maria Stella
> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 8:26 AM
> To: Chris Perley
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: More on Budiansky
>
>
> > >
> > > We can reduce our dependency on wood to build homes by as much as 70 %
> or
> > > more if we choose to. There are lots of good alternatives to wood
> > > in homes.
> > > European homes have been made from autoclaved concrete now for over
> fifty
> > > years.
>
> Indeed, when we think about how wood is wasted in the US, it is really
> demoralizing. Every now and then a cyclone sweeps everything away and
> still they haven't learned.
>
> >
> > I have heard (though am no expert) that concrete is far more energy
> > intensive than wood.
> >
> It might be, but it endures much more than wood, and does not need ALL
> THOSE PRESERVATIVES that wood needs. Also, it does not need all this
> fire-equipment geer, and all the synthetic products taht accompany wood
> building, such as suspicious insulation materials etc. If you add all
> these in calculations and devide by endurance time (about 50 years unless
> a tornado or fire attackse earlier), it is probably a too expensive
> business.
> Unless you are talking about a small hut somewhere in the woods.
> Also, in Europe, there is a material that is called "Bricks", and does not
> have as far as i know not even the constraints of cement. In many parts of
> Europe (e.g. south) only the skeletons are built with concrete.
>
> > >Decks, roofs, and so on do not and should not be made from wood.
> >
> >
> > Why not? And what alternative do you suggest that meets my second point
> > about low-energy demanding, low environmentally damaging renewable
> products
> > a couple of posts back?
> >
> To difficult to swallow this, it sounds like greenwash propaganda.
>
> Maria-Stella
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|