3 ms·

The UK (and Ireland) have an _extremely_ annoying fetish for concrete block-built houses. I don't understand it, except that perhaps old wooden structures rotte

The UK (and Ireland) have an _extremely_ annoying fetish for concrete block-built houses. I don't understand it, except that perhaps old wooden structures rotted. Or, more likely, it was a consequence of deforesting their islands with overgrazing (the green fields of Ireland are an artificial landscape representing huge destruction of biodiversity). Talking to the planning officer now and they'll begrudgingly allow timber frame but insist you cover it in plaster, hideous pebble dash, etc., which of course is cement based and carries a large carbon footprint. If history is any indicator they'll catch up to what the rest of the world is doing and start embracing timber frame homes (which are easier to hit NZEB standards with) about 20 years after everyone else. Timber frame homes have a much, much, much lower embodied energy footprint, and of course sequester carbon in their wood.

makomk 7y ago
UK insurers and mortgage companies don't like homes of non-traditional construction because they've tended to develop expensive and unpredictable problems a few decades down the line, and they dislike both uncertainty and things that cost them lots of money for obvious reasons.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  How is wood housing non-traditional?
  - makomk 7y ago
    It's not how homes have normally been constructed in the UK. We have a few ancient wattle and daub houses which are no doubt hell to insure, but anything Victorian and newer was generally brick-built or concrete other than some prefabs from the inter-war period which are definitely hell to mortgage or insure. Modern timber-based construction methods are completely different from all those things.
close04 7y ago
Wood is great but it's just one piece of the carbon footprint of a house. It just complements our not-so-green construction materials. Building low and spreading the population of large cities over 1-2 stories tall buildings is how massive swaths of land are no longer green but covered in asphalt, houses, and cars. Wood burns more easily, it's much easier to damage by water, rot, and all kinds of infestations and pests that are very common in many areas, etc. and on top of that it's very hard to "manufacture". Widespread and extensive use of wood in home construction around the world and deforestation come hand in hand. Steel, concrete, and brick are still required in volume for any building and to respect safety codes. More so in any dense and seismically active area. > and of course sequester carbon in their wood. Trees sequester carbon in their wood, in addition to many other benefits. :) It took 150 years to come up with usable car batteries. Perhaps in time we'll come up with better building materials that truly sequester carbon either from manufacturing or by actively absorbing it. In the meantime there's no going around the fact that a larger home will have a larger carbon footprint. The average US home has 5 rooms and 170mp/1800sqft plus 300mp/3200sqft yard&all. Moving to timber frames and EVs doesn't compensate for the other choices.

makomk 7y ago

UK insurers and mortgage companies don't like homes of non-traditional construction because they've tended to develop expensive and unpredictable problems a few decades down the line, and they dislike both uncertainty and things that cost them lots of money for obvious reasons.

CalRobert 7y ago
How is wood housing non-traditional?
- makomk 7y ago
  It's not how homes have normally been constructed in the UK. We have a few ancient wattle and daub houses which are no doubt hell to insure, but anything Victorian and newer was generally brick-built or concrete other than some prefabs from the inter-war period which are definitely hell to mortgage or insure. Modern timber-based construction methods are completely different from all those things.

close04 7y ago

Wood is great but it's just one piece of the carbon footprint of a house. It just complements our not-so-green construction materials. Building low and spreading the population of large cities over 1-2 stories tall buildings is how massive swaths of land are no longer green but covered in asphalt, houses, and cars. Wood burns more easily, it's much easier to damage by water, rot, and all kinds of infestations and pests that are very common in many areas, etc. and on top of that it's very hard to "manufacture". Widespread and extensive use of wood in home construction around the world and deforestation come hand in hand. Steel, concrete, and brick are still required in volume for any building and to respect safety codes. More so in any dense and seismically active area. > and of course sequester carbon in their wood. Trees sequester carbon in their wood, in addition to many other benefits. :) It took 150 years to come up with usable car batteries. Perhaps in time we'll come up with better building materials that truly sequester carbon either from manufacturing or by actively absorbing it. In the meantime there's no going around the fact that a larger home will have a larger carbon footprint. The average US home has 5 rooms and 170mp/1800sqft plus 300mp/3200sqft yard&all. Moving to timber frames and EVs doesn't compensate for the other choices.