5 ms·

This has nothing to do with carbon footprint. They chose laminated wood for development cost reduction. Prefabricated parts require a lot less labor on site and

This has nothing to do with carbon footprint. They chose laminated wood for development cost reduction. Prefabricated parts require a lot less labor on site and can be put up a lot faster. This moves costs from the developer to the buyers, as they will have to do a lot more maintenance over the life time of the building. Said maintenance and repairs contradict the carbon footprint reduction claim if you consider the total cost of ownership.

ErikHuisman 3y ago
And (1) it looks dope.
- troupo 3y ago
  It doesn't. All of the modern wooden/eco houses with wooden facades I've seen in Sweden look really shabby and rundown after as little as one year. Because for some reason modern construction prefers to just expose wood to the elements. In contrast all the traditional houses look pretty because no one thinks that painting your house is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
  - ErikHuisman 3y ago
    Yeah, i can see that being a problem. The renderings always look sharp, and weathering can give a much different and more uneven/random look. This ofcourse is al subjective.
- expertentipp 3y ago
  In the computer renderings only? Wood exposed to atmospheric conditions quickly looks badly. All it takes is 3-4 cycles of sunny summers and freezing winters, with mild humid periods in between.
Tepix 3y ago
I'm not convinced, do you have any numbers to back that up?
- trabant00 3y ago
  It's your problem that you are not convinced. The trade-off between concrete and wood as to initial vs subsequent costs are not exactly a secret for even an owner who had both, let alone a civil engineer. Numbers: 1, 2, 3...
  - Tepix 3y ago
    There are wooden houses that are centuries old. Reinforced concrete doesn't really have a reputation for lasting long. See https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-reinforced-concrete-56078 https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-reinforced-conc... There are multiple books about it: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/b15160/concrete-sustainability-per-jahren-tongbo-sui https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/b15160/conc... and https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/9781482271447/durability-concrete-cold-climates-pigeon https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/97814822714... Finally, here's a study doing the exact cost comparison: https://meridian.allenpress.com/fpj/article/70/4/482/454349/Comparison-of-Building-Construction-and-Life-Cycle https://meridian.allenpress.com/fpj/article/70/4/482/454349/... "...However, because of its estimated much higher end-of-life salvage value compared with the concrete building, the TLCC calculated for a 60-year study period reversed the cost and showed about a 2.4 percent cost advantage for the mass timer building. ..."

ErikHuisman 3y ago

And (1) it looks dope.

troupo 3y ago
It doesn't. All of the modern wooden/eco houses with wooden facades I've seen in Sweden look really shabby and rundown after as little as one year. Because for some reason modern construction prefers to just expose wood to the elements. In contrast all the traditional houses look pretty because no one thinks that painting your house is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
- ErikHuisman 3y ago
  Yeah, i can see that being a problem. The renderings always look sharp, and weathering can give a much different and more uneven/random look. This ofcourse is al subjective.
expertentipp 3y ago
In the computer renderings only? Wood exposed to atmospheric conditions quickly looks badly. All it takes is 3-4 cycles of sunny summers and freezing winters, with mild humid periods in between.

Tepix 3y ago

I'm not convinced, do you have any numbers to back that up?

trabant00 3y ago
It's your problem that you are not convinced. The trade-off between concrete and wood as to initial vs subsequent costs are not exactly a secret for even an owner who had both, let alone a civil engineer. Numbers: 1, 2, 3...
- Tepix 3y ago
  There are wooden houses that are centuries old. Reinforced concrete doesn't really have a reputation for lasting long. See https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-reinforced-concrete-56078 https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-reinforced-conc... There are multiple books about it: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/b15160/concrete-sustainability-per-jahren-tongbo-sui https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/b15160/conc... and https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/9781482271447/durability-concrete-cold-climates-pigeon https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/97814822714... Finally, here's a study doing the exact cost comparison: https://meridian.allenpress.com/fpj/article/70/4/482/454349/Comparison-of-Building-Construction-and-Life-Cycle https://meridian.allenpress.com/fpj/article/70/4/482/454349/... "...However, because of its estimated much higher end-of-life salvage value compared with the concrete building, the TLCC calculated for a 60-year study period reversed the cost and showed about a 2.4 percent cost advantage for the mass timer building. ..."