Author Topic: Why build frame houses? (Read 5454 times)

Art Eatman · « **Reply #25 on:** January 21, 2006, 09:04:04 AM »

280plus, it's a desert thing. Low humidity. The hay has a mortar coating, then stucco, then paint--just as with adobe. A wider than usual roof overhang is a Good Thing, as well.

Drift: The feds called for bids on subsidized housing in Santa Fe, New Mexico. One builder submitted plans with the use of adobe. His bid was among the low ones, but the D.C. Beltway Bandits didn't understand anything but brick or wood. They queried the bidder about durability. In response, he sent them a photograph of the Taos Pueblo, a multistory apartment complex which has been continuously occupied for over 500 years...

Art

280plus · « **Reply #26 on:** January 21, 2006, 09:45:14 AM »

Ah, low humidity. Makes more sense.

Quote

In response, he sent them a photograph of the Taos Pueblo, a multistory apartment complex which has been continuously occupied for over 500 years...

Hah, I LOVE that. It reminds me of me trying to sell radiant floor heating. The usual response is about how it's new and they don't like new stuff. I love to tell them how the Romans used to heat their floors. They did it a bit differently but nothing is new about heating the floor.

Cheesy

Matt G · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2006, 10:24:42 AM »

It's rare that stone or concrete is actually the frame of the structure; it's usually the facing.

Frankly, it's easier to do it that way, and usually stronger.

One of the neater houses I've ever seen was the Pratt Cabin in McKitrick Canyon in Guadalupe National Park, where the original settler built a house at the end of that distant place with local flake stone. It's amazing:

note that even the roof is stone. It was built in the 40's, and stands unchanged (now locked) with virtually no maintenance.

I'd love to do that.

Tallpine · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2006, 12:00:30 PM »

"ever been in a hay bale / stucco building?"

Some nearby friends built a porch addition onto their ranch house using straw bales.

About the only good thing that I could see about it, was the great insulation value and the fact that they already had the straw bales.

The amount of labor involved is atrocious! Of course, just stacking the bales doesn't take much time, but then they had to painstakingly apply the chicken wire and stucco (two layers, inside and out) plus a bunch of hardware to tie the bales together (little cables, clamps, turnbuckles, etc). My two daughters helped them with mixing and applying the stucco. The only advantage is that all that labor is pretty much totally unskilled - you don't have to be able to even read a tape measure or swing a hammer.

I figure I could have built that addition with lumber and plywood in a weekend.

The thing that most folks don't seem to realize is that the wall materials are going to only be about ten percent of the total cost: foundation, roof, windows, doors, plumbing, fiixtures, wiring, etc are going to be about the same either way. Just like a yacht - the accomodations cost more than the hull. So even if you save half on the cost of the walls, that is only 5% of the total cost.

I went through this years ago with some folks who wanted me to cut and stack logs on their land so they could build a cabin. Their trees were mostly worthless for that purpose, being short, branchy, and tapered a lot. But they thought they could save so much money using trees from their own land. I finally got out of that one when I discovered that they could not even show me their exact property lines Sad

I'd love to have a stone house (a little castle tower, maybe...?) but hopefully we will live in this place (frame/wood siding) for the rest of our lives. I'm getting too old and worn out to build now. But we did build a little 3-sided log shelter for our horses using wind and ice damaged trees from our land. All it cost was a few spikes and chainsaw gas. We even scrounged the metal for the roof (but we had to buy some screws).

If I had an easy and cheap source for some flat rocks, just for fun I would like to build a "beehive" shieling (cottage) on our land.

280plus · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2006, 01:04:03 PM »

Did you say horses? I'll be right over... Cheesy

Smoke · « **Reply #30 on:** January 22, 2006, 04:43:29 PM »

Try to get an interim construction loan for anything but "conventional construction".

Smoke

MillCreek · « **Reply #31 on:** January 22, 2006, 07:13:10 PM »

Up here in the Pacific NW, the land of timber, probably 95%+ of residential construction is lumber frame houses. We have very few brick or stone houses, a few log cabins, and I think few if anyone is doing the steel frame housing. Of course, here in the Seattle area, a 2000 sq. ft. 3 bed 2 bath on a 5000 sq. foot lot will run you around $ 300,000 outside of a 20 mile radius of downtown Seattle, and a lot more in some areas closer in. The same house, 10 miles south of me, would go for $ 425,000 in the Bellevue-Redmond area.

280plus · « **Reply #32 on:** January 23, 2006, 02:21:53 AM »

Quote

The same house, 10 miles south of me, would go for $ 425,000 in the Bellevue-Redmond area.

Location, location, location...

Art Eatman · « **Reply #33 on:** January 23, 2006, 06:04:53 AM »

A contractor in my wife's hometown of Thomasville, GA, told me that his direct cost of building a house is $46 per square foot. Then, add profit and the cost of the lot. From casual reading of the real estate ads, lots (not in the luxury areas) seem to run $15K to 30K. I didn't ask the guy what he adds for profit.

Art

Leatherneck · « **Reply #34 on:** January 23, 2006, 06:24:54 AM »

I built two workshops--one up North and one down at the cottage. Both are two-story with about 2500 sq. ft of space. Against all the "expert" advice I built using 2x6 studs and 2x12 joists all on 16-inch centers. I like the extra solid feeling of the heavier framing material, and also the R-19 walls and R-30 ceiling capacity using fiberglas batts. The material cost was less then 10% additional.

TC

...has left the building. · « **Reply #35 on:** January 23, 2006, 09:20:40 AM »

Quote from: Smoke

Try to get an interim construction loan for anything but "conventional construction".

Smoke

Smoke is right on.

Art Eatman · « **Reply #36 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:17:02 PM »

I asked a banker why financiing was difficult to get except for conventional 3/2/2 or bigger. He said that actuarial tables showed the average length of residence, overall, was about three years. Unconventional houses are hard to sell, and there are too many of them that get repoed and then written off at a loss.

Art

brimic · « **Reply #37 on:** January 23, 2006, 04:31:26 PM »

Quote

Unconventional houses are hard to sell, and there are too many of them that get repoed and then written off at a loss.

There's a house down the street from me that looks like it was designed by a schizophrenic architect. It has 3 different types of roof lines of the styles of Dutch colonial, Cape Cod, and Tudor. Its porportions are all wrong, and to top it off, its two toned, with the main part of the house being baby blue and the 3 car oddly shaped garage being yellow. The house is 6 years old and has been for sale for 5 of those years and is for sale now.

K Frame · « **Reply #38 on:** January 23, 2006, 08:07:43 PM »

New house going up about 3 miles from where I live.

It's a big place, probably going to run 3,500-4,500 square feet.

All steel construction.

Oleg Volk · « **Reply #39 on:** January 23, 2006, 08:09:18 PM »

Discussed this thread with one of my friends today...he wants a tornado-proof house...I suggested part of the Maginot Line!

K Frame · « **Reply #40 on:** January 23, 2006, 09:45:42 PM »

Tornado proof?

Underground.

Tornado resistant?

Poured, rounded concrete.

hso · « **Reply #41 on:** January 24, 2006, 12:24:32 PM »

Quote from: Oleg Volk

Why hardly anyone in the US, even those with luxury homes, get flimsy frame houses instead of brick, stone, reinforced concrete, etc? Sheetrock isn't exactly the most classy wall material, though cheap. Can't concrete blocks be pre-cast with channels for plumbing and wires? Seems that sturdier materials would resist hurricanes and tornados better...

The short answer to your question is that it's an economy of scale issue. Stick build houses are infinately flexable in disign, the materials are inexpensive, properly built they are durable and resistant to even extreme weather and will last a hundred years (if they don't burn).

The reason block isn't used with channels set in them for utilities is that you'd end up with a large 3-D puzzel requireing block layers to align the channels for every block (slowing the process and increasing labor costs). Blocks with channels configured to preclude alignment errors would be expensive to produce and would not compare favorably with stick or standard block or brick.

Properly done sheetrock produces a stable and attractive wall. To be properly done though requires good installers and an excellent "mud man" (plasterer) to produce a finished surface as nice as lath and plaster. It also provides fire resistance that paneling does not.

280plus · « **Reply #42 on:** January 24, 2006, 01:26:35 PM »

In the old days, up here in the northeast, all the sheetrockers were French Canadian, eh? So we used to call sheetrock "French plywood". These days it seems all the sheetrockers are MEXICAN for some reason. So does that now make sheetrock "Mexican plywood"?

And when did we go from Canadian Sheetrockers to Mexican ones anyways??

Things that make you say hmmmm...

Cheesy

Firethorn · « **Reply #43 on:** January 24, 2006, 05:51:44 PM »

Even an above ground thin-wall shotcrete home is pretty much hurricane proof. No edges to catch, very strong walls.

News:

Author Topic: Why build frame houses? (Read 5454 times)

...has left the building.