My ex-council house semi is basic in design, but built like the
proverbial brick "outhouse". Since all the internal walls, ground
floor and first floor, are of solid masonry, the joists in the loft
seem really strong with no discernible spring when one steps along
one. The joists are now partially boarded over, but I was wondering
what a brand new house is like in the loft. In a modern house, the
walls are usually stud type, i.e. not load-bearing. So how strong are
the ceiling joists in the loft in a modern house? How to they stay up
without load-bearing walls to support them?

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...

My ex-council house semi is basic in design, but built like the
proverbial brick "outhouse". Since all the internal walls, ground
floor and first floor, are of solid masonry, the joists in the loft
seem really strong with no discernible spring when one steps along
one. The joists are now partially boarded over, but I was wondering
what a brand new house is like in the loft. In a modern house, the
walls are usually stud type, i.e. not load-bearing.

Only on the upper levels usually and around the downstairs toilet.

So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft
in a modern house? How to they stay up
without load-bearing walls to support them?

They are ruff trusses. Each truss is all one piece and spans the width of
the house. The internal walls usually have a wood piece here and there from
floor to roof trusses giving extra mid way support on some.

Some modern house are very well made and very sturdy. The problem with
older houses is they lack insulation and cost a fortune to run.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| My ex-council house semi is basic in design, but built like the
| proverbial brick "outhouse". Since all the internal walls, ground
| floor and first floor, are of solid masonry, the joists in the
| loft seem really strong with no discernible spring when one steps
| along one. The joists are now partially boarded over, but I was
| wondering what a brand new house is like in the loft. In a modern
| house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not load-bearing.
| So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft in a modern
| house? How to they stay up without load-bearing walls to support
| them?

The ceiling joists in a modern house have very little weight to carry (only
a plasterboard ceiling and some insulation). Their main purpose is to stop
the ends of the roof (and walls) spreading outwards, so they are held in
tension which helps stop sagging, and they will often be diagonally braced
to the rafters, both supporting and being supported.

Owain

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:35:51 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| My ex-council house semi is basic in design, but built like the
| proverbial brick "outhouse". Since all the internal walls, ground
| floor and first floor, are of solid masonry, the joists in the
| loft seem really strong with no discernible spring when one steps
| along one. The joists are now partially boarded over, but I was
| wondering what a brand new house is like in the loft. In a modern
| house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not load-bearing.
| So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft in a modern
| house? How to they stay up without load-bearing walls to support
| them?

The ceiling joists in a modern house have very little weight to carry (only
a plasterboard ceiling and some insulation). Their main purpose is to stop
the ends of the roof (and walls) spreading outwards, so they are held in
tension which helps stop sagging, and they will often be diagonally braced
to the rafters, both supporting and being supported.

Can one walk on them though?

MM

You want to take what this IMM tit says with a pinch of salt. I don't
wish to do a Felix Tilley on him, as any input -even negative input, has
some value if only to identify the arseholes of the planet.

Cheap two storey housing is based on a brick outer shell with an inner
leaf of breezeblock. This is far less substantial than timber-frame. The
upper storey is made of studwork that reaches just short of the trusses.

The trusses are usually made of 4 x 2 the pieces joined together by dogs
made of steel plates. There are no purlins and there are no walkways.
The whole is stitched together with 4 x 1's and the roof tile battons.
It is engineered to be strong enough when closed to take the weight of
an
heavy aerial fitter plus his tool-box and a cladding of snow in an
howling gale. (Yes right!)

Of course you can crawl inside it. How do you think they run the
electrics?



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Give me an ex-local authority house anytime. They are BUILT, not like todays
rubbish. Yes ok, they may not be upto today's modern insulation standards
but in 5 years time, the modern houses will probably not meet the standards
of the day either.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:35:51 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| My ex-council house semi is basic in design, but built like the
| proverbial brick "outhouse". Since all the internal walls, ground
| floor and first floor, are of solid masonry, the joists in the
| loft seem really strong with no discernible spring when one steps
| along one. The joists are now partially boarded over, but I was
| wondering what a brand new house is like in the loft. In a modern
| house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not load-bearing.
| So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft in a modern
| house? How to they stay up without load-bearing walls to support
| them?

The ceiling joists in a modern house have very little weight to carry
(only
a plasterboard ceiling and some insulation). Their main purpose is to
stop
the ends of the roof (and walls) spreading outwards, so they are held in
tension which helps stop sagging, and they will often be diagonally
braced
to the rafters, both supporting and being supported.

Can one walk on them though?

MM


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/2004

Mike Mitchell wrote in message
The ceiling joists in a modern house have very little weight to carry (only
a plasterboard ceiling and some insulation). Their main purpose is to stop
the ends of the roof (and walls) spreading outwards, so they are held in
tension which helps stop sagging, and they will often be diagonally braced
to the rafters, both supporting and being supported.

Can one walk on them though?

MM

In my flat the beams are maybe a little less than 2x4s spaced 600mm or
so apart, and they span 18 feet. They form the bottom part of a braced
"A" frame structure that is the roof. There's a single stud wall in
the middle which I no doubt provides a little bit of support. The
beams can support my weight but there's no way I could make the space
into a liveable space like that. I'm sure over time the ceiling would
sag. Tncidentally the builders put down a length of chipboard
flooring, to to the electrics or lay the insulation or something but
they couldn't be bothered to lift the board up (which isn't nailed or
anything) to put insulation under it! That's how I know the ceiling
can suport my weight 'cos I've been adding extra insulation recently.

"Michael McNeil" wrote in message
news:4f28e447bc7d86cfc979d9aaac8fdf48.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...

You want to take what this IMM tit says
with a pinch of salt.

he should take it seriously.

I don't wish to do a Felix Tilley on him, as
any input -even negative input, has
some value if only to identify the arseholes of the planet.

...........and our know-it-all commences...

Cheap two storey housing is based on a brick outer shell with an inner
leaf of breezeblock. This is far less substantial than timber-frame.

....of course tripe! It is about the same as timber frame. .......he goes
on...

The upper storey is made of studwork that
reaches just short of the trusses.

More tripe he prattles ......in fact most the upper floor wall are made
from Paramount type of wall boards. The traditional 4x2 stud is very rare
now. ......he goes ....

The trusses are usually made of 4 x 2

The smaller hosue can have 3x2 or even less.

the pieces joined together by dogs
made of steel plates. There are no purlins
and there are no walkways.
The whole is stitched together with 4 x 1's

......he omitted that stays are fitted into any end gable wall... also if a
tank is up there a walkway has to be from the loft hatch to the tank. he
goes on....

and the roof tile battons. It is engineered to be
strong enough when closed to take the weight of
an heavy aerial fitter plus his tool-box and a
cladding of snow in an howling gale. (Yes right!)

....could be, but yet again wrong....as most have a tank up there resting on
the "joists" of the trusses. .....he babbles on again....

Of course you can crawl inside it. How do you
think they run the electrics?

...such misinformed nonsense I must say. In general there is a trap door to
the loft, which is usually strong enough to be boarded and hold a water
tank.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:35:51 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| My ex-council house semi is basic in design, but built like the
| proverbial brick "outhouse". Since all the internal walls, ground
| floor and first floor, are of solid masonry, the joists in the
| loft seem really strong with no discernible spring when one steps
| along one. The joists are now partially boarded over, but I was
| wondering what a brand new house is like in the loft. In a modern
| house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not load-bearing.
| So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft in a modern
| house? How to they stay up without load-bearing walls to support
| them?

The ceiling joists in a modern house have very little weight to carry
(only
a plasterboard ceiling and some insulation). Their main purpose is to
stop
the ends of the roof (and walls) spreading outwards, so they are held in
tension which helps stop sagging, and they will often be diagonally
braced
to the rafters, both supporting and being supported.

Can one walk on them though?

he obviously knows nothing about this, yet comments as if he is an
authority. Some mothers....

"troubleinstore" wrote in message
...

Give me an ex-local authority house anytime. They are BUILT, not like
todays
rubbish. Yes ok, they may not be upto today's modern insulation standards

All that cold and damp! Oh no! If you want a modern well built solid house
they are there. You find them and buy one, or build your own.

In a modern house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not
load-bearing. So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft
in a modern house?

Frequently, even in modern houses, there is a masonry wall in the middle
that rises to loft level (there was in my last house). Also, don't assume
that stud walls are non structural. Many houses are built entirely from
structural stud walls without any masonry in sight (except maybe a
decorative brick shell).

Christian.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:11:29 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

In a modern house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not
load-bearing. So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft
in a modern house?

Frequently, even in modern houses, there is a masonry wall in the middle
that rises to loft level (there was in my last house). Also, don't assume
that stud walls are non structural. Many houses are built entirely from
structural stud walls without any masonry in sight (except maybe a
decorative brick shell).

It usually depends on the size of the house, larger modern houses have
a brick wall in the middleish upstairs whereas a smaller house, (below
a decent sized 3 bed), have the upstairs entirely of paramount, or
occasionally studwork. That's the way all the houses I've wired in the
last few years have been, and there's at least a good few hundred, in
different areas, by different house builders. They all build houses
exactly the same.
...

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd.

The problems with most modern houses are that the ceilings are too low and
the rooms too narrow. No dount all thanks to ergonomics - the science of
making things just too small to be comfortable.

Today's obsession with environment (only the outdoor environment, mind,
which is not where most people spend their time) means a lack of fresh air
and higher levels of pollutants indoors. When I lived in a new flat, I felt
like I was always getting a cold (that bunged up feeling). As soon as I
moved to a draughty old victorian house with single glazing and open fires,
I felt much healthier.

Stuff the heating costs, health is more important than some eco nonsense.

Mal


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...

My ex-council house semi is basic in design, but built like the
proverbial brick "outhouse". Since all the internal walls, ground
floor and first floor, are of solid masonry, the joists in the loft
seem really strong with no discernible spring when one steps along
one. The joists are now partially boarded over, but I was wondering
what a brand new house is like in the loft. In a modern house, the
walls are usually stud type, i.e. not load-bearing.

Only on the upper levels usually and around the downstairs toilet.

So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft
in a modern house? How to they stay up
without load-bearing walls to support them?

They are ruff trusses. Each truss is all one piece and spans the width of
the house. The internal walls usually have a wood piece here and there
from
floor to roof trusses giving extra mid way support on some.

Some modern house are very well made and very sturdy. The problem with
older houses is they lack insulation and cost a fortune to run.

In article , Mike
Mitchell wrote:
but I was wondering what a brand new house is like in
the loft. In a modern house, the walls are usually stud
type, i.e. not load-bearing. So how strong are the ceiling
joists in the loft in a modern house? How to they stay up
without load-bearing walls to support them?

The roof is usually constructed of trussed rafters - see
http://www.trussed-rafters.co.uk/ttypes.htm for typical shapes -
which bear on the external walls only: any support given by
internal partitions is purely incidental. They are perfectly
strong enough for the design loads but no stronger than required
- computer design minimises the sizes of the timber members and
connecting plates. Generally you would expect the ceiling ties to
be capable of taking a distributed load of about 0.75kN/m2 or
15lb/ft2

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Mal" wrote in message
...

The problems with most modern houses are that the ceilings are too low and
the rooms too narrow. No dount all thanks to ergonomics - the science of
making things just too small to be comfortable.

I agree with that 110%. We are more concerned with keeping boring green
fields than caring for people.

Today's obsession with environment (only the outdoor environment, mind,
which is not where most people spend their time) means a lack of fresh air
and higher levels of pollutants indoors. When I lived in a new flat, I
felt
like I was always getting a cold (that bunged up feeling). As soon as I
moved to a draughty old victorian house with single glazing and open
fires,
I felt much healthier.

Downlighters and walls light make the ceilings taller. Ventilation is easy
to install into any house or flat.

"Lurch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:11:29 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

In a modern house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not
load-bearing. So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft
in a modern house?

Frequently, even in modern houses, there is a masonry wall in the middle
that rises to loft level (there was in my last house). Also, don't assume
that stud walls are non structural. Many houses are built entirely from
structural stud walls without any masonry in sight (except maybe a
decorative brick shell).

It usually depends on the size of the house, larger modern houses have
a brick wall in the middleish upstairs whereas a smaller house, (below
a decent sized 3 bed), have the upstairs entirely of paramount, or
occasionally studwork. That's the way all the houses I've wired in the
last few years have been, and there's at least a good few hundred, in
different areas, by different house builders. They all build houses
exactly the same.

That is changing fast. TJI "I" beams are now being commonly used. A
smaller house with a short truss span does not require mid point support.

IMM wrote

he obviously knows nothing about this, yet comments as if he is an
authority. Some mothers....

Are you the Pot or the Kettle?

"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
news
IMM wrote

he obviously knows nothing about this, yet comments as if he is an
authority. Some mothers....

Are you the Pot or the Kettle?

I just "know" that's all.

As I said...Some mothers....

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

The problems with most modern houses are that the ceilings are too low
and
the rooms too narrow. No dount all thanks to ergonomics - the science
of
making things just too small to be comfortable.

I agree with that 110%. We are more concerned with keeping boring green
fields than caring for people.


Making each room a foot taller won't affect land useage. Adding a couple of
feet in each direction to the rooms could be done too, with a minimal
reduction in the number of houses on a plot (just put them closer together
if needs be). That's all it needs to make most new homes massively more
liveable - and it wouldn't add much to the building cost either.

The problem is not lack of land, but lack of regulations specifying minimum
dimensions for new builds.

Today's obsession with environment (only the outdoor environment, mind,
which is not where most people spend their time) means a lack of fresh
air
and higher levels of pollutants indoors. When I lived in a new flat, I
felt
like I was always getting a cold (that bunged up feeling). As soon as I
moved to a draughty old victorian house with single glazing and open
fires,
I felt much healthier.

Downlighters and walls light make the ceilings taller. Ventilation is
easy
to install into any house or flat.



No, it's taller walls that make ceilings higher. Downlighters just make
them brighter. I'll still scuff my head on a dangly light fitting, no
matter how well lit the surrounding walls.

No ventillation that would pass any eco-test is as good as my draughty
windows and open fireplaces for keeping the air fresh. Inefficient, I know,
but I feel better for it.

Mal

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

The problems with most modern houses
are that the ceilings are too low and
the rooms too narrow. No dount all
thanks to ergonomics - the science
of making things just too small to be
comfortable.

I agree with that 110%. We are more concerned
with keeping boring green
fields than caring for people.

Making each room a foot taller won't affect
land useage.

Very true, and using basements won't either.

Adding a couple of feet in each direction to
the rooms could be done too, with a minimal
reduction in the number of houses on a plot
(just put them closer together
if needs be).

Or just give more land. Over development is rife,and Two Jags gave into the
Countryside Alliance and is insisting on tighter development. Ludicrous.

That's all it needs to make most new
homes massively more liveable - and
it wouldn't add much to the building cost either.

very true.

The problem is not lack of land, but lack
of regulations specifying minimum
dimensions for new builds.

Very true. There is not lack of land, it is "available building land" that
is the problem. the will not release it.

Today's obsession with environment (only
the outdoor environment, mind,
which is not where most people spend
their time) means a lack of fresh
air and higher levels of pollutants indoors.
When I lived in a new flat, I felt
like I was always getting a cold (that bunged
up feeling). As soon as I
moved to a draughty old victorian house
with single glazing and open fires,
I felt much healthier.

Downlighters and walls light make the
ceilings taller. Ventilation is easy
to install into any house or flat.

No, it's taller walls that make ceilings higher.

Physically, yet mentally how the room is arranged and coloured can make a
room seem twice the size.

Downlighters just make
them brighter.

Dimmers can take care of that.

I'll still scuff my head on a dangly light fitting, no
matter how well lit the surrounding walls.

Don't ha have dangling lights. I don't. The ceilings appears much taller.

No ventillation that would pass any
eco-test is as good as my draughty
windows and open fireplaces for
keeping the air fresh. Inefficient, I know,
but I feel better for it.

A Vet Axia unit in the loft blowing into the hall, via the ceiling makes all
the difference. Easily retrofitted.

IMM wrote:

I'll still scuff my head on a dangly light fitting, no
matter how well lit the surrounding walls.

Don't ha have dangling lights. I don't. The ceilings appears much taller.

If the ceilings appear 'taller' you must be walking on the walls.

--
Chris Green

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mal" wrote in message
...

The problems with most modern houses
are that the ceilings are too low and
the rooms too narrow. No dount all
thanks to ergonomics - the science
of making things just too small to be
comfortable.

I agree with that 110%. We are more concerned
with keeping boring green
fields than caring for people.

Making each room a foot taller won't affect
land useage.

Very true, and using basements won't either.

Adding a couple of feet in each direction to
the rooms could be done too, with a minimal
reduction in the number of houses on a plot
(just put them closer together
if needs be).

Or just give more land. Over development is rife,and Two Jags gave into
the
Countryside Alliance and is insisting on tighter development. Ludicrous.

That's all it needs to make most new
homes massively more liveable - and
it wouldn't add much to the building cost either.

very true.

The problem is not lack of land, but lack
of regulations specifying minimum
dimensions for new builds.

Very true. There is not lack of land, it is "available building land" that
is the problem. the will not release it.


Near where I live, there are plans to build 6500 new homes, with associated
schools, hospitals, indistrial units and a science park. The homes are
going on greenfield sites, the industry on brown. The floodplain area is
going to be parkland. All fairly sensible.

The site is only 350 acres, so it's going to be a squeeze as usual, but I
bet if the developers had twice the land, they would build twice the number
of houses, not make each one bigger.

I'll say again - there needs to be some regulations covering minimum room
dimensions. That is what will make a difference to the vast majority of
people who can only afford one of these cookie-cutter estate houses.

In article , Mal
wrote:
I'll say again - there needs to be some regulations covering
minimum room dimensions. That is what will make a difference
to the vast majority of people who can only afford one of these
cookie-cutter estate houses.

Parker Morris in the 1960's laid down minimum floor areas for
Council housing but I don't think it place of HMG to tell people
how big their rooms should be - if people want to pay big money
for a Barratt house or Victorian cottage with tiny rooms that is
their choice. We could (in places already are) adopt the system of
quoting the internal floor area so you could very quickly see
whether it was spacious or poky, and such information might (or
might not) change buyers perceptions

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Mal
wrote:
I'll say again - there needs to be some regulations covering
minimum room dimensions. That is what will make a difference
to the vast majority of people who can only afford one of these
cookie-cutter estate houses.

Parker Morris in the 1960's laid down minimum floor areas for
Council housing but I don't think it place of HMG to tell people
how big their rooms should be - if people want to pay big money
for a Barratt house or Victorian cottage with tiny rooms that is
their choice. We could (in places already are) adopt the system of
quoting the internal floor area so you could very quickly see
whether it was spacious or poky, and such information might (or
might not) change buyers perceptions


I'm not suggesting the room size is decided by HMG - just some *minimum*
dimensions - just like you have minimum standards applied to other aspects
of building. Why shouldn't room size be included as a measure of quality?

It's not the choice of most people to live in a pokey rabbit hutch. Not
everyone has the luxury of enough money to have a true choice. The price of
the smallest hosues will always tend to creep up to whatever the maximum the
average first time buyer can afford. If the smallest houses were a bit
bigger, they wouldn't necessarily be more expensive to buy, but it would
mean an improvement in the quality of the country's housing stock, and in
the living conditions of its population.

In fact, rather than build ever smaller starter homes, perhaps the planning
authorities should encourage the building of lots of large houses instead.
That would take the pressure of housing prices by reducing the demand from
people with loads of cash. Eventually this would come through to more
sustainable prices at the lower end.

Mal

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Mal
wrote:
I'll say again - there needs to be some regulations covering
minimum room dimensions. That is what will make a difference
to the vast majority of people who can only afford one of these
cookie-cutter estate houses.

Parker Morris in the 1960's laid down minimum floor areas for
Council housing but I don't think it place of HMG to tell people
how big their rooms should be -

I think it is. At least the minimum sizes. A 3 bed house should have
minimum room sized as they generally have 5 people in them. You need a
toiler downstairs, so they can give minimum room sizes, and also minimum
sized plots and proximity etc.

if people want to pay big money
for a Barratt house or Victorian
cottage with tiny rooms that is
their choice.

In certain price brackets you have no choice, they are all poky.

We could (in places already are) adopt the system of
quoting the internal floor area so you could very quickly see
whether it was spacious or poky, and such information might (or
might not) change buyers perceptions

Not about buyers, it is about minimum living space in new houses, although
the squ foot is useful.

"Mal" wrote in message
...

The problems with most modern houses
are that the ceilings are too low and
the rooms too narrow. No dount all
thanks to ergonomics - the science
of making things just too small to be
comfortable.

I agree with that 110%. We are more concerned
with keeping boring green
fields than caring for people.

Making each room a foot taller won't affect
land useage.

Very true, and using basements won't either.

Adding a couple of feet in each direction to
the rooms could be done too, with a minimal
reduction in the number of houses on a plot
(just put them closer together
if needs be).

Or just give more land. Over development
is rife,and Two Jags gave into the
Countryside Alliance and is insisting on tighter
development. Ludicrous.

That's all it needs to make most new
homes massively more liveable - and
it wouldn't add much to the building cost either.

very true.

The problem is not lack of land, but lack
of regulations specifying minimum
dimensions for new builds.

Very true. There is not lack of land,
it is "available building land" that
is the problem. They will not release it.

Near where I live, there are plans to build
6500 new homes, with associated
schools, hospitals, indistrial units and a
science park. The homes are
going on greenfield sites, the industry
on brown. The floodplain area is
going to be parkland. All fairly sensible.

The site is only 350 acres, so it's going
to be a squeeze as usual, but I
bet if the developers had twice the land,
they would build twice the number
of houses, not make each one bigger.

If minimum house room and plot sizes were in force they could not build the
sort of developments we all hate. Also with a certain amount of homes
mandatory open land should be there, etc, etc.

I'll say again - there needs to be some
regulations covering minimum room
dimensions. That is what will make a
difference to the vast majority of
people who can only afford one of
these cookie-cutter estate houses.

Which is the majority of people.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:13:42 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:

I'm not suggesting the room size is decided by HMG - just some *minimum*
dimensions - just like you have minimum standards applied to other aspects
of building. Why shouldn't room size be included as a measure of quality?

But don't forget that HMG get extra taxes by having more houses, in
the form of council tax which is applied to each property, so it's not
in HMG's interest to expand the footprint size of new houses - in fact
the reverse is true.

If you have two houses occupying AxB footprint then I believe the
council tax for those two properties will give government rather more
than having a single dwelling occupying 2xAxB. Not forgetting that the
latter house might well be in the topmost band so no matter what size
it was increased to it would still pay the same council tax.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:34:57 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:

(just put them closer together if needs be).

No!!

Detached houses that are detached only by a foot or two look utterly
stupid and give one no privacy whatsoever! Do NOT recommend this
suggestion at all, sorry!

MM

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:11:29 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

In a modern house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not
load-bearing. So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft
in a modern house?

Frequently, even in modern houses, there is a masonry wall in the middle
that rises to loft level (there was in my last house). Also, don't assume
that stud walls are non structural. Many houses are built entirely from
structural stud walls without any masonry in sight (except maybe a
decorative brick shell).

But I would never contemplate buying one of those. I can get garden
sheds at B & Q.

MM

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:27:31 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

That is changing fast. TJI "I" beams are now being commonly used. A
smaller house with a short truss span does not require mid point support.

Language! What does TJI mean?

MM

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:41:23 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Mike
Mitchell wrote:
but I was wondering what a brand new house is like in
the loft. In a modern house, the walls are usually stud
type, i.e. not load-bearing. So how strong are the ceiling
joists in the loft in a modern house? How to they stay up
without load-bearing walls to support them?

The roof is usually constructed of trussed rafters - see
http://www.trussed-rafters.co.uk/ttypes.htm for typical shapes -
which bear on the external walls only: any support given by
internal partitions is purely incidental. They are perfectly
strong enough for the design loads but no stronger than required
- computer design minimises the sizes of the timber members and
connecting plates. Generally you would expect the ceiling ties to
be capable of taking a distributed load of about 0.75kN/m2 or
15lb/ft2

Basically, the lofts in these modern houses don't sound to me anything
like as sturdy as in my ex-council house! Maybe I should buy TWO ex-LA
semis where I want to move to (Lincs) and make a single home out of
them. Or live in one half and rent out the other half.

By the way, does the quality of council house building vary across the
country? Where were the best ones built?

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:27:31 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

That is changing fast. TJI "I" beams are now being commonly used. A
smaller house with a short truss span does not require mid point support.

Language! What does TJI mean?

Trus Joist McMillan I beams
http://www.masonite.se

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:11:29 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

In a modern house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not
load-bearing. So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft
in a modern house?

Frequently, even in modern houses, there is a masonry wall in the middle
that rises to loft level (there was in my last house). Also, don't assume
that stud walls are non structural. Many houses are built entirely from
structural stud walls without any masonry in sight (except maybe a
decorative brick shell).

But I would never contemplate buying one of those. I can get garden
sheds at B & Q.

A pneumonia getting old council house.

On 13 Feb 2004 23:27:51 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Mike Mitchell writes:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:34:57 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:

(just put them closer together if needs be).

No!!

Detached houses that are detached only by a foot or two look utterly
stupid and give one no privacy whatsoever! Do NOT recommend this
suggestion at all, sorry!

Not as bad as "link detached" (which are joined by the garage) and are,
in my book, called "terraced".

No way! Actually, some detached houses that are so close as to be
practically touching each other, are *worse* than link detached.
Because all the link detached properties I have seen are linked by the
garages, the main house shell being further away from its neighbour by
a greater distance than other so-called detached houses where the gap
between is barely wide enough to walk down.

MM

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:05:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:11:29 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

In a modern house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not
load-bearing. So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft
in a modern house?

Frequently, even in modern houses, there is a masonry wall in the middle
that rises to loft level (there was in my last house). Also, don't assume
that stud walls are non structural. Many houses are built entirely from
structural stud walls without any masonry in sight (except maybe a
decorative brick shell).

But I would never contemplate buying one of those. I can get garden
sheds at B & Q.

A pneumonia getting old council house.

You must have only experienced badly built or maintained ones, then!
This house is as dry as a bone and is solid enough to last another
fifty years at least - with minimal maintenace. I know, because I have
just spent a week working in the loft and am continually amazed at the
huge timbers they used. Can you say that about a lot of the jerry
building that has gone on in Britain over the past two decades?

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:05:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:11:29 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

In a modern house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not
load-bearing. So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft
in a modern house?

Frequently, even in modern houses, there is a masonry wall in the
middle
that rises to loft level (there was in my last house). Also, don't
assume
that stud walls are non structural. Many houses are built entirely
from
structural stud walls without any masonry in sight (except maybe a
decorative brick shell).

But I would never contemplate buying one of those. I can get garden
sheds at B & Q.

A pneumonia getting old council house.

You must have only experienced badly built or maintained ones, then!
This house is as dry as a bone and is solid enough to last another
fifty years at least - with minimal maintenace. I know, because I have
just spent a week working in the loft and am continually amazed at the
huge timbers they used. Can you say that about a lot of the jerry
building that has gone on in Britain over the past two decades?

You are obviously impressed with over engineering. Some very sold new home
are being built. If you want one like that find who makes them.

Mike Mitchell wrote in message . ..

Basically, the lofts in these modern houses don't sound to me anything
like as sturdy as in my ex-council house! Maybe I should buy TWO ex-LA
semis where I want to move to (Lincs) and make a single home out of
them. Or live in one half and rent out the other half.

By the way, does the quality of council house building vary across the
country? Where were the best ones built?

Of course. I've seen ones built from a steel frame with plasterboard
walls and PVC exterior cladding. Ugly.

Regards, NT

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:51:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

You are obviously impressed with over engineering.

Building a house (or anything) to last is not over-engineering, but
plain old common sense. Why design anything that has a limited
lifespan? This is where Britain continually goes wrong with our
short-termist attitude to most endeavours.

MM

On 15 Feb 2004 14:21:04 -0800, (N. Thornton) wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote in message . ..

Basically, the lofts in these modern houses don't sound to me anything
like as sturdy as in my ex-council house! Maybe I should buy TWO ex-LA
semis where I want to move to (Lincs) and make a single home out of
them. Or live in one half and rent out the other half.

By the way, does the quality of council house building vary across the
country? Where were the best ones built?

Of course. I've seen ones built from a steel frame with plasterboard
walls and PVC exterior cladding. Ugly.

And yet the majority were not built like that.

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:51:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

You are obviously impressed with over engineering.

Building a house (or anything) to last is not over-engineering, but
plain old common sense. Why design anything that has a limited
lifespan? This is where Britain continually goes wrong with our
short-termist attitude to most endeavours.

Poorly designed houses that cost a fortune to heat and collectively
contribute vast amounts of CO2 to global warming should be demolished. The
current new houses should get 100 years. But if far superior newer, no
heating houses are common in 30, 40, 50 years, it is easy to dispose of the
current crop.

Making poor technology to last is silly.