The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Anna Kettle wrote:

400 years ago it was oak and wattle and daub and thatch. It looks nice,
but it has structural limitations.

seems to last longer than more modern building materials though.


I don't like buildings with steel exoskeletons 'celebrating the use of
modern materials' any more than I like a house with no damp proof
course, no foundations, and which absolutely requires a breathable skin
to eradicate the rising damp. ;-)

this is a bit of a popular misconception. Victorian houses do not
suffer from damp when properly maintained. The common occurrence of
damp is precisely because so many have been subject to inappropriate
works and failure to do basic maintenance. Damp is not a problem
inherent in their design in any way.


I am by no means sure that slaked lime takes any less energy to make
than portland cement by the way.

I think it does. It also allows the reuse of bricks and blocks, and
bricks are very energy intensive to manufacture, so it saves even more
energy.

Arguably we have more oil left than oak trees as well.

we do. Then again oaks will be with us in another 1000 years, oil
probably will not. We choose how much oak we want to have, and for some
reason we have chosen to have not a lot.


BUT we certainly have a LOT of straw around right now. And its
engineering properties are actually, in large bulk, pretty reasonable
for houses.

I hope straw houses become more accepted. It used to be used as
insulation sheets, I dont know how it compares to polystyrene, or
whether a hybrid might work well. A hybrid sounds like it might run:
the straw would reduce the volume of plastic used, and add some
strength.


As far as breathable/not breathable goes, houses with humans generate
water. That has to be eradicated somehow.

yes, ventilation being the near universal method.

In older houses with lower insulation, the water got to the walls and
condensed, making them damp, and the walls needed to breath outwards to
get rid of it.

such walls do not get damp


The walls got damp also because they had no DPC's.

no, that does not cause damp. Wall DPCs are a case of debateable
science, there is simply no need for them.


They
needed to be flexible because they subsided as they had no foundations.

Old houses routinely suffer settlement, not subsidence. It is misnamed
fairly often, but it is not normally subsidence.

And most do have foundations. 9" is shallow by modern standards, but
deep enough for the great majority of cases.


They got round all that by having open fires with chimneys that sucked
out warm sticky air,

old houses work fine without such chimneys.


Today we go far far deeper with rigid steel reinforced foundations, so
our houses don't move,

Yes, though todays foundation requirements have become a bit removed
from logic. Sure, they wont move, but they are routinely 4x as deep as
there is any need to be, sometimes more. Inappropriate blanket policies
spend everyones time and money.


and with open fires being a bit polluting, we
have efficient boilers and hot water heating,

yes much better


and sealed double or
triple glazed windows and sealed doors

a very unhealthy move. Regrettably regs insist these dg horrors be
retrofitted in some cases as well, a move thats unlikely to save energy
or money.


and pack the walls with insulation.

The net effect of that is what water IS inside, stays there and will
condense on the coldest part of the house - generally just behind the
insulation. So we install vapour barriers on the inside.

And then punch holes in the structure to achieve enough 'background
ventilation/air change' to let the sticky fug out in a controlled way.

Daft to fit draught excluders then add more ventilation!

Theres nothing controlled about it. Airflow will be apx proportional to
outdoor airspeed, which varies greatly, and depend on direction. A
1000mm2 of grill gives no more control than 1000mm2 of other gaps -
which are easily measured afterwards or designed in beforehand.


My complaint about modern houses is their soullessness.

Yes. I think this translates primarily into sameness. Sameness is
caused by overregulation, and some amount of senseless regulation. For
example we are not allowed to build straw houses, despite them working
well. It is also caused to some extent by cheap transport. With low
transport costs, regional variation dwindles.

The dictation of a very small number of building methods will
inevitably result in a whole lot of sameness. Let alone the incapable
style police! Gawd. I say incapacble because despite all their efforts
to make nice houses, theyre still mandating what look very much like
drab council houses to me. Thers still no sign of them understanding
what the solution is.

The dictation against any creative buildings kills the variety,
interest, development and numerous unique innovative and unusual
decorations that characterise old buildings. A direct result of
numerous unnecessary build regs & petty PP practice.


I really do think that there is a sensible discussion to be engaged in
about what is the overall best way to build a house today,

I think that is precisely the problem. The whole point to regaining
healthy building practice is that there is no single best way, there
are a whole variety of ways, and we need to see any effective method
permitted again. Earth, straw, bottle, glass and steel, bare wood,
brick, jetties, follies, underground, lots of variety, and room for
interesting buildings again.


OTOH I am really for the *most* part a very firm supporter of current
building regualtions.

Why do we need upstairs sockets to be wheelchair accessible? Why do we
need 10" joists when 6" are perfectly good? Why do we need overly wide
corridors everywhere? There are millions of houses, mostly Victorian,
that meet modern build regs in no area whatever, yet are just fine. (In
all respects but insulation)

Build regs started out as a good idea, and brought good results, but
their mission has crept a very long way since WW1. While some are
concenred with serious and constructive matters, so many now are not.


Apart from the Part P and disabled ones which are
politically instigated, and not a reflection on 'best practice' as such.

Best practice depends on the situation. You've only got to look at
converting an old house to see this. It would be illegal under todays
regs to do all sorts of genuine improvements to old buildings: how does
that make sense?


The best of the old and the best of the new is my motto.

We do not have the best, never had, and never will. It is precisely
this denial of insisting that every new house should be the best that
is leading to our unhealthy building stock today. Rather than making
them the best, or a healthy variety, it is making them a uniform
standard with no room for the various clever ideas that people come up
with, and were once free to incorporate into their houses. 'The best'
is obviously far from the best, think Barratts, and simply kills
progress and character/ individuality.


I'm totally in favour of there being build regs, but I do think the
ones we have today have forgotten the plot somewhere along the line.
And the style police... theyre the problem, not the solution. Remove
them and there would be some yucky buildings, that is the inevitable
consequence of allowing more freedom, but style would become free to
develop again, and lots of lovely places would show up. The development
of style has been killed since WW2 by our overregulation, so much so
that there isnt even any style our present period will be known for.


NT