Emissions, Global warming or a scam

[onetruth]

Climate-change deniers: my Arbtalk app informs me that this topic is now "Hot".

[Big J]

7 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

Utter bullshit J.

You can have very efficient insulation AND solar panels.

Just make it law.

Don’t like it? Don’t build a house.

 

Micro-renewables have not been economically viable until extremely recently. The payback period on solar is now 6-8 years but it was the case until a few years ago that the installation cost of the panels would only be recouped at the point where the performance dropped significantly. 

 

I am not saying do not install solar panels, but I am saying that improved heat efficiency is a much more cost-effective way of conserving energy and therefore reducing the environmental footprint of the house. It's worth remembering that on average, energy usage for heating is almost 4 times higher per household than electricity usage.

 

I would strongly advise not getting me started on the absolutely terrible, unforgivably poor quality of new building in this country. It's probably my number one subject to get on my soapbox about. My wife is an architect specialising in sustainable design and consults with other architects, advising them on the topic. My grandfather was also an architect, so it's been a lifelong passion. 

 

We have an eventual plan to start a sustainable building company to (on a very local level) take on the likes of Persimmon, Barratt etc to build low cost, high-quality affordable homes for local families whose only choice at present is an overpriced shitty little rabbit hutch, which is too hot in summer, too cold in winter and so close to the neighbours that you can hear them fart. Stuff that. People need a bit of space, and I feel that there is a rising wave of hostility towards these large-scale builders who shamelessly make very almost 50% profit on every turd of a house they sell.

 

Bugger.....I got on my soapbox! ?

Edited April 5, 2019 by Big J

[Woodworks]

8 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

Utter bullshit J.

You can have very efficient insulation AND solar panels.

Just make it law.

Don’t like it? Don’t build a house.

 

Just rules on insulation alone don't work. I don't know if things have changed much in recent years but when I was doing a bit of work on houses building control were conspicuous by their absence. The last place I worked on I was building the A-frames and fitting the rafters. The onsite builder and client were doing the insulation. Nice thick Celotex but there were gaps everywhere. I pointed out that whats the point of insulation if the air can bypass it and it would be best to fill the gaps with expanding foam. They were having none of it and said it would all be covered before building control will see it so no point. Later in the same build, I came back to fit skirting boards and there was a howling draught at the wall floor junction. So there is no point in increasing the levels of insulation if the quality of installation is so low. 

[Big J]

16 minutes ago, Woodworks said:

Just rules on insulation alone don't work. I don't know if things have changed much in recent years but when I was doing a bit of work on houses building control were conspicuous by their absence. The last place I worked on I was building the A-frames and fitting the rafters. The onsite builder and client were doing the insulation. Nice thick Celotex but there were gaps everywhere. I pointed out that whats the point of insulation if the air can bypass it and it would be best to fill the gaps with expanding foam. They were having none of it and said it would all be covered before building control will see it so no point. Later in the same build, I came back to fit skirting boards and there was a howling draught at the wall floor junction. So there is no point in increasing the levels of insulation if the quality of installation is so low. 

I should have clarified that thermal efficiency also includes airtightness.

 

My wife's practice did a school up in the Western Highlands. They used a German building method called Brettstapel (low-grade softwood lamellae held together by hardwood dowels, forming structural walls) which is inherently airtight. The challenge comes after with the fit out. As it happened, the airtightness achieved was superb (I went to the test) and the chap testing it said he'd only seen values like that on underground buildings. Now, despite it being in a pretty harsh climate, it requires heating only on Monday mornings and the heat from the kids is sufficient to heat it for the remainder of the week. It has a clever layout for the windows to ensure good air circulation and it's a very healthy place to be, as well as using very little energy.

[Mark Bolam]

You’re right fellas.

What I’m getting it is that it’s a scandal that they’re allowed to build this rubbish.

The extra cost of panels and proper insulation is buttons in the scheme of things.

The bigger houses on the new estate down here were £700k.

 

At least you get a free eucalyptus on your front lawn with every purchase.

 

[breffni]

11 minutes ago, Big J said:

I should have clarified that thermal efficiency also includes airtightness.

 

My wife's practice did a school up in the Western Highlands. They used a German building method called Brettstapel (low-grade softwood lamellae held together by hardwood dowels, forming structural walls) which is inherently airtight. The challenge comes after with the fit out. As it happened, the airtightness achieved was superb (I went to the test) and the chap testing it said he'd only seen values like that on underground buildings. Now, despite it being in a pretty harsh climate, it requires heating only on Monday mornings and the heat from the kids is sufficient to heat it for the remainder of the week. It has a clever layout for the windows to ensure good air circulation and it's a very healthy place to be, as well as using very little energy.

Id love to build that sort if house.

[Big J]

43 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

You’re right fellas.

What I’m getting it is that it’s a scandal that they’re allowed to build this rubbish.

The extra cost of panels and proper insulation is buttons in the scheme of things.

The bigger houses on the new estate down here were £700k.

 

At least you get a free eucalyptus on your front lawn with every purchase.

 

It's absolutely criminal, from start to finish. 

 

The planners are only keen to work with larger firms that they know. A friend who built his house near Aviemore had the planning officer admit as much. 

 

Then the cost of the land is hugely and artificially inflated. Why does building land cost £2-4k per square metre? It's certainly not worth that. 

 

Then, the houses are built down to a cost rather than up to a standard. Would anyone actually choose to have a loft space that is completely unusable? As well as the latticework of minute timbers used to form the framework for the roof (which is a cost saving of a couple hundred quid, if that), they often no longer rate the rafters to take a person's weight. 

 

Then, due to the ridiculous cost of land and the developer's ruthless pursuit of profit, they pack them in at least 10 to the acre (including roads and verges) and sell at nearly 50% profit. 

 

It's absolutely scandalous.

 

Our plan in a few years is to start a firm building small batches of sustainable, affordable houses in developments in the villages around where we live. There is a need for new housing (that is irrefutable) but it doesn't need to be so bad. Just 4 or 5 houses in a group, sympathetically designed to complement the local environment and surroundings, built with at least 20% larger rooms(we build the smallest houses in Europe), and built to a standard so that it's warm in winter, cool in summer, using materials that don't off-gas, aggravate and cause asthma and other allergies. Then put them on plots large enough so that you actually have a garden suitable for a family, and lay them out so that you're not playing tetris when trying to park your car. Then, instead of a 50% profit margin, go 25% meaning that the houses are just as affordable as the shitboxes from Persimmon. You'd have to put a covenant on them so that when resold the value can only increase by the same percentage as the overall housing market price rise. This would prevent profiteering and keep them affordable in the long term.

 

This kind of localised approach to new housing would mean (more broadly) that houses are built by local firms that care about their community, the people that live in their houses and the long term sustainability of the developments, rather than just the profit.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Big J

[Stere]

Was watching grand designs last night about 2 new houses on  some street with 10 self builds.

 

Why do nearly  all "grand design" houses seem to have such massive sized roofs compared to walls, which seems to create alot of unusable spaces without head room?

 

 

[Big J]

17 minutes ago, Stere said:

Was watching grand designs last night about 2 new houses on  some street with 10 self builds.

 

Why do nearly  all "grand design" houses seem to have such massive sized roofs compared to walls, which seems to create alot of unusable spaces without head room?

 

 

Form at the expense of function I guess. You can have both. 

 

 

[Mark Bolam]

1 hour ago, Big J said:

It's absolutely criminal, from start to finish. 

 

The planners are only keen to work with larger firms that they know. A friend who built his house near Aviemore had the planning officer admit as much. 

 

Then the cost of the land is hugely and artificially inflated. Why does building land cost £2-4k per square metre? It's certainly not worth that. 

 

Then, the houses are built down to a cost rather than up to a standard. Would anyone actually choose to have a loft space that is completely unusable? As well as the latticework of minute timbers used to form the framework for the roof (which is a cost saving of a couple hundred quid, if that), they often no longer rate the rafters to take a person's weight. 

 

Then, due to the ridiculous cost of land and the developer's ruthless pursuit of profit, they pack them in at least 10 to the acre (including roads and verges) and sell at nearly 50% profit. 

 

It's absolutely scandalous.

 

Our plan in a few years is to start a firm building small batches of sustainable, affordable houses in developments in the villages around where we live. There is a need for new housing (that is irrefutable) but it doesn't need to be so bad. Just 4 or 5 houses in a group, sympathetically designed to complement the local environment and surroundings, built with at least 20% larger rooms(we build the smallest houses in Europe), and built to a standard so that it's warm in winter, cool in summer, using materials that don't off-gas, aggravate and cause asthma and other allergies. Then put them on plots large enough so that you actually have a garden suitable for a family, and lay them out so that you're not playing tetris when trying to park your car. Then, instead of a 50% profit margin, go 25% meaning that the houses are just as affordable as the shitboxes from Persimmon. You'd have to put a covenant on them so that when resold the value can only increase by the same percentage as the overall housing market price rise. This would prevent profiteering and keep them affordable in the long term.

 

This kind of localised approach to new housing would mean (more broadly) that houses are built by local firms that care about their community, the people that live in their houses and the long term sustainability of the developments, rather than just the profit.

Sounds brilliant J, massive thumbs up from me.