The man who built a Finnish log cabin last night. I missed the start,
did he just nail the beams onto breezeblock piers?

Another interesting program in the Grand Design series.

Bruce

"alfonso" wrote in message
oups.com...
The man who built a Finnish log cabin last night. I missed the start,
did he just nail the beams onto breezeblock piers?

Another interesting program in the Grand Design series.

Bruce

it just sat straight on them...i think they were probably concrete blocks
though, with holes and reinforcing rods through and filled with concrete.

Steve

i think they were probably concrete blocks though, with holes and
reinforcing rods through and filled with concrete.


you think correctly... although he did set 2 out out by aboout 200mm,
but the guy from the company supplying the house said it would be fine

it's funny how there is never, or rarely, mention of the BCO coming to
check things out, would he have been happy about these 2 pillars ? after
all they are supposed to support the house.

LJ

in2minds wrote:

i think they were probably concrete blocks though, with holes and
reinforcing rods through and filled with concrete.



you think correctly... although he did set 2 out out by aboout 200mm,
but the guy from the company supplying the house said it would be fine

it's funny how there is never, or rarely, mention of the BCO coming to
check things out, would he have been happy about these 2 pillars ? after
all they are supposed to support the house.

LJ


He would. The offset from the actual weight was minimal so the bending
moment on the hoiuse base would not have been large.

What was all that nonsense about the party wall?

I'd certainly be annoyed if a wall I had to look at was extended using the
wrong bricks - especially if they wanted to have a fire escape down it
which exited into my - or mutual land. And the fire escape *looked* like
it was designed to waste as much ground space as possible - and remove car
parking space.

Think we weren't told the full story. ;-)

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 22:13:04 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

What was all that nonsense about the party wall?

I'd certainly be annoyed if a wall I had to look at was extended using the
wrong bricks - especially if they wanted to have a fire escape down it
which exited into my - or mutual land. And the fire escape *looked* like
it was designed to waste as much ground space as possible - and remove car
parking space.

Think we weren't told the full story. ;-)
Indeed,obviously wadded ****s who think they can do as they please.

"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 22:13:04 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

What was all that nonsense about the party wall?

I'd certainly be annoyed if a wall I had to look at was extended using
the
wrong bricks - especially if they wanted to have a fire escape down it
which exited into my - or mutual land. And the fire escape *looked* like
it was designed to waste as much ground space as possible - and remove
car
parking space.

Think we weren't told the full story. ;-)
Indeed,obviously wadded ****s who think they can do as they please.

Unfortunately sometimes, money talks (or talked as was in this case).

In message ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

What was all that nonsense about the party wall?

I'd certainly be annoyed if a wall I had to look at was extended using the
wrong bricks - especially if they wanted to have a fire escape down it
which exited into my - or mutual land. And the fire escape *looked* like
it was designed to waste as much ground space as possible - and remove car
parking space.

Think we weren't told the full story. ;-)


All discussed here previously, of course. The thread you want is

34 GRAND for a cooker that doesn't work?

From late January 2004. Google and laugh.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... A pound of puppies; a college of cardinals; a bowl of weevils

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
What was all that nonsense about the party wall?

(a) The self-builders didn't do what they said they were going to do on
their own diagrams.

(b) the next door neighbours didn't seem to like them anyway. Perhaps
they would have liked to buy the property themselves but didn't have the
money or were too bureaucratic to get their own bid in in time.

(We don't have a Party Wall Act in Scotland.)

Owain

"Owain" wrote in message
...
(We don't have a Party Wall Act in Scotland.)

Gulp ! What do you have then ?

Mike wrote:
"Owain" wrote
(We don't have a Party Wall Act in Scotland.)
Gulp ! What do you have then ?

A mixture of common sense and common law. The laws setting out the
rights and obligations of support to flats above/below in flatted
properties descend directly from Roman law.

.... A wall built equally on both sides of a boundary is owned up to the
medium filum, or middle line, by each of the adjoining proprietors. Each
has a common interest in the wall as a whole. This was held to be the
law in the Outer House decision in Thom v Hetherington. This decision
confirmed two sheriff court decisions to the same effect in Gray v
Macleod and Gill v Mitchell.[1] The rule adopted in these cases is the
same as the well-established rule for common gables. The effect is that
each owner can use his part of the wall as he pleases, provided that he
does not adversely affect the common interest in the wall as a whole.
Common interest imposes both a restraint and a positive obligation. The
restraint is that each owner must take care not to disturb the stability
of the wall as a whole. The positive obligation is that each must
maintain his own part of the wall. ...
The existing law seems to us to as a matter of legal policy to be
both clear and sensible. It does not cause any injustice. It provides
for maintenance of a boundary wall as a whole while at the same time
allowing each owner to make full use of his own section of the wall. The
rules of common interest afford sufficient protection to an owner who
thinks that his neighbour is using the wall in such a way as to
jeopardise its stability and structure.
(Scot Law Com No 163)

[1]
Thom v Hetherington, 1988 SLT 724.
Gray v Macleod, 1979 SLT (Sh Ct) 17.
Gill v Mitchell, 1980 SLT (Sh Ct) 48.

Owain

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
What was all that nonsense about the party wall?

(a) The self-builders didn't do what they said they were going to do on
their own diagrams.

(b) the next door neighbours didn't seem to like them anyway. Perhaps
they would have liked to buy the property themselves but didn't have the
money or were too bureaucratic to get their own bid in in time.

(We don't have a Party Wall Act in Scotland.)

What happens in disputes of any sort?

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On 11 May 2005, Owain wrote

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
What was all that nonsense about the party wall?

(a) The self-builders didn't do what they said they were going to
do on their own diagrams.

(b) the next door neighbours didn't seem to like them anyway.
Perhaps they would have liked to buy the property themselves but
didn't have the money or were too bureaucratic to get their own
bid in in time.

As I recall it wasn't that. The neighbouring use is an orchestral
rehearsal hall, and the main objection was to the principle of
residential use of the adjacent space. Regardless of who was there
first, I think they expect to have complaints from the new arrivals
about noise from rehearsals. My sympathies are with the symphony:
given the attitude of those two, it's probably a reasonable fear.

(And given that after 2+ years negotiating about the appearance and
materials of the party wall, they just ignored the main condition as to
what it was to be built of, I figure the orchestra next door has every
reason to make life bloody difficult for them.)

--
Cheers,
Harvey

"Harvey Van Sickle" wrote in message
...
On 11 May 2005, Owain wrote

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
What was all that nonsense about the party wall?

(a) The self-builders didn't do what they said they were going to
do on their own diagrams.

(b) the next door neighbours didn't seem to like them anyway.
Perhaps they would have liked to buy the property themselves but
didn't have the money or were too bureaucratic to get their own
bid in in time.

As I recall it wasn't that. The neighbouring use is an orchestral
rehearsal hall, and the main objection was to the principle of
residential use of the adjacent space. Regardless of who was there
first, I think they expect to have complaints from the new arrivals
about noise from rehearsals. My sympathies are with the symphony:
given the attitude of those two, it's probably a reasonable fear.

(And given that after 2+ years negotiating about the appearance and
materials of the party wall, they just ignored the main condition as to
what it was to be built of, I figure the orchestra next door has every
reason to make life bloody difficult for them.)

The orchestra is there first. So, no noise complaints can be entertained
from next door. They can have something legal drawn- up stating this.

- Not allowing extending the party wall was bloody mindedness.
- I would not allow the fire escape onto my property. The orchestra has a
case
- Using dissimilar brick was silly.
- the wall was a hodge-podge mess anyway, so way anyone could complain is
beyond me.

The council may be wanting the area to change over to residential from light
industry, so were not on the side of the orchestra, wanting them eventually
out.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"alfonso" wrote in message
oups.com...
The man who built a Finnish log cabin last night. I missed the start,
did he just nail the beams onto breezeblock piers?

Another interesting program in the Grand Design series.

Bruce

Well if I win the lottery I'm having one built. It looked great
http://www.erlund-house.com/

Well if I win the lottery I'm having one built. It looked great
http://www.erlund-house.com/


Personally, I thought the whole wood thing was a bit overwhelming and from
the outside it looked like an oversized wooden wendy house like you get from
a typical garden centre.

RedOnRed wrote:
Well if I win the lottery I'm having one built. It looked great
http://www.erlund-house.com/


Personally, I thought the whole wood thing was a bit overwhelming and from
the outside it looked like an oversized wooden wendy house like you get from
a typical garden centre.

agreed. the roof would have looked beter if it was turfed and all that wood
inside would have done my head in after a while. a few rooms done out
in plaster would have lightened it up a bit and made it look less shed like.

nice plot tho


RT

[news] wrote:

all that wood
inside would have done my head in after a while.

By the end of the program I had had more than enough!
I was glad of the sanctuary of the tiled bathroom where I would have
gladly stayed for the rest of the program... sadly the producers wanted
to show even MORE WOOD !!!


--
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://trade-price-supplements.co.uk - TRADE PRICED SUPPLEMENTS for ALL!
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.
http://gymratz.co.uk/hot-seat.htm - Live web-cam! (sometimes)

"[news]" wrote in message
...
RedOnRed wrote:
Well if I win the lottery I'm having one built. It looked great
http://www.erlund-house.com/


Personally, I thought the whole wood thing was a bit overwhelming and
from
the outside it looked like an oversized wooden wendy house like you get
from
a typical garden centre.

agreed. the roof would have looked beter if it was turfed and all that
wood
inside would have done my head in after a while. a few rooms done out
in plaster would have lightened it up a bit and made it look less shed
like.

nice plot tho


RT

In fact, if they'd used bricks and tiles and plastered throughout inside it
might have enhanced it a bit...?

"RedOnRed" wrote in message
...

"[news]" wrote in message
...
RedOnRed wrote:
Well if I win the lottery I'm having one built. It looked great
http://www.erlund-house.com/


Personally, I thought the whole wood thing was a bit overwhelming and
from
the outside it looked like an oversized wooden wendy house like you get
from
a typical garden centre.

agreed. the roof would have looked beter if it was turfed and all that
wood
inside would have done my head in after a while. a few rooms done out
in plaster would have lightened it up a bit and made it look less shed
like.

nice plot tho

In fact, if they'd used bricks and tiles and plastered throughout inside
it
might have enhanced it a bit...?

Yes, made it look like a house built by Wimpey.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"RedOnRed" wrote in message
...
Well if I win the lottery I'm having one built. It looked great
http://www.erlund-house.com/


Personally, I thought the whole wood thing was a bit overwhelming and from
the outside it looked like an oversized wooden wendy house like you get
from a typical garden centre.

Anyone else notice the rather ugly unconnected 28mm pipes running down the
surface of the wall to the wood fired stove? That was supposedly going to
provide hot water and heating. Must have been a change of plan.

That though begs the question, if that was the original plan, why weren't
the pipes concealed?

For keen DIYers I could see the lack of flexibility of this type of
construction with regard to re-wiring, re-plumbing etc. could be rather
frustrating.

Tim

In article , Tim Downie wrote:


That though begs the question, if that was the original plan, why weren't
the pipes concealed?

Hmm, the only thing he mentioned was about the fat black pipe which was
exposed to dissipate as much heat as possible into the house.

G.

I'd think I'd go for one of those cool 'HUF' houses. Lots of glass and
angles. I thought that one last night looked too much like a sauna

Here's teh web site

groovy...

http://www.huf-haus.de/en/index1_ds1205083085.html

"Tim Downie" wrote in message
...

"RedOnRed" wrote in message
...
Well if I win the lottery I'm having one built. It looked great
http://www.erlund-house.com/


Personally, I thought the whole wood thing was a bit overwhelming and from
the outside it looked like an oversized wooden wendy house like you get
from a typical garden centre.

Anyone else notice the rather ugly unconnected 28mm pipes running down the
surface of the wall to the wood fired stove? That was supposedly going to
provide hot water and heating. Must have been a change of plan.

I thought somebody mentioned underfloor CH, but the
master bedroom looks to have a radiator of some sort:
http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/...allery_image11.
html

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...
I thought somebody mentioned underfloor CH, but the
master bedroom looks to have a radiator of some sort:

http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/...allery_image11.
html

I noticed the boy's room did as well. Could be the u/f had faults in those
rooms or simply not enough poke.

Does anybody know the U value of that newspaper stuff. The roof only seemed
to have 6" of it which wouldn't meet the regs for Rockwool, yet he was
hoping to heat all that space just from a single wood burner.

Also is it okay to have the chimney exposed to touch like that ?

Good programme though. None of Kevin's usual gloom and doom half way helped
too.

Nick Finnigan wrote:

I thought somebody mentioned underfloor CH, but the
master bedroom looks to have a radiator of some sort:
http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/...allery_image11.
html


AFAIK This is pretty standard when the underfloor heating is
underpowered. The UF heating is there for comfort and the radiators
boost the system to be able to fully heat the room. All the radiators
looked to be under windows, normally the logic being this is to prevent
a cooler area around the window due to heat loss, but I don't know how
relevant this is with those super efficient triple glazed windows.

In the program they showed one underfloor pipe running parallel to each
floor joist, most systems I've seen that solely heat from the underfloor
pipes have double this density (heating pipe on either side of each joist)

--
drbob

OE Users - check this out!
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

RedOnRed wrote:

Well if I win the lottery I'm having one built. It looked great
http://www.erlund-house.com/



Personally, I thought the whole wood thing was a bit overwhelming and from
the outside it looked like an oversized wooden wendy house like you get from
a typical garden centre.


You could esily dry line teh interior once it had all settled if you
wanted a conventional finish. As apoosed to a Finnish finish...;-)

The man who built a Finnish log cabin last night. I missed the start,
did he just nail the beams onto breezeblock piers?

I missed the program, but i`ve followed up on the pics - what was the
build time for the project ?

Cheers

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

alfonso wrote:
The man who built a Finnish log cabin last night. I missed the start,
did he just nail the beams onto breezeblock piers?

Another interesting program in the Grand Design series.

Bruce


Yes a long hard sLOG from start to FINISH but he got there in the end!

Yes a long hard sLOG from start to FINISH but he got there in the end!

What was the build time for this one ?

(i`ll ignore the feeble attempt at a pun ;-) )

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

Colin Wilson wrote:
Yes a long hard sLOG from start to FINISH but he got there in the end!


What was the build time for this one ?

(i`ll ignore the feeble attempt at a pun ;-) )

Towards the end of the program Kevin McCloud mentioned 7 months.

--
drbob

OE Users - check this out!
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

In message ,
drbob wrote:

Colin Wilson wrote:
Yes a long hard sLOG from start to FINISH but he got there in the end!


What was the build time for this one ?

(i`ll ignore the feeble attempt at a pun ;-) )

Towards the end of the program Kevin McCloud mentioned 7 months.

From (dodgy) memory, the programme opened in June 2004 with the slab
laid and piers about to be started, and the last segment was in April
2005 with the family moved in but the house "not quite finished".
Allowing a bit extra at the start for preparing the ground and laying
the slab and a bit more at the end for tidying up it's probably nearer
to a year all told. I believe the erection of the kit supplied from
Finland was about 7 months though.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... Complaints? Write them here legibly [] -