[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
GBlist: Re: Wood Use
Someone Wrote:
>Why would you want to limit the use of wood products in building?
>We like cellulosic products because the fibers are inherantly
>non-conductive, these products are the only renewable building resources
>we have, it's cheap and easy (read: low impact) to fabricate into usable
>stuff like walls, it imparts a big moisture storage potential in
>building assemblies that is critical to durability, the embodied energy
>is low, the hassle of procuring these products is minimal (read: low
>impact), the distribution impact of these products is truly minimal, and
>wood fiber insulation is so superior to *anything* else that it seems
>like a gift from God. Did I mention that it's all recyclable?
I'm a little surprised at this response - many people, for many different
reasons, are trying to minimize the use of wood in buildings. The
reduction of wood is one of most active areas today in building research
and design, both in progressive and in traditional circles.
Indeed, the US and Canada are the only countries in the world that waste
wood in the way our building industry does. What we take for granted,
all of Europe, Asia, and Down Under sees as being stunningly wasteful.
Having been to these places, seen the quality and sustainability of
construction, and then compared it to our methods, I must say I agree -
we might bury in a landfill (this is not "recycling") as much wood from
each new house, as most overseas homes actually use!
>So please tell me what would motivate a person to rail against 10,000
>years of building evolution that has just about achieved perfection?
A quick look at the new subdivisions in my area - consisting of 3 - 5,000
SF stick framed homes, that appear on the landscape as if they were
haphazardly dropped from a cargo plane - make me wonder if we have
differing ideas of "perfection". Fortunatly, "building evolution" -
certainly world-wide and belatedly here as well - is moving away from
such crude monstrosities.
I think one of the points being made here, and which I wish to fully
concur with, is this:
In its proper place, wood is a beautiful, effective, and wonderfull
material. Although its common in other parts of the world to use none,
in my own house, I would always feature wood. And that is the key: my
personal guideline is to use wood only *where it can be experienced*.
There are plenty of other materials that work as well or better in
situations where they are not seen anyway.
There are other organizations far better equipped to offer assorted facts
and statistics, but here is a summary of my personal thinking on this
subject ---
1. At our current population levels, and style of building, wood is very
much NOT a "renewable resource". This became true in other parts of the
world much earlier, and they adapted their methods and materials
accordingly. The US and Canada is currently being dragged kicking and
screaming into 21st century reality, but reality it is. And from my
perspective, the sooner the better: I would much rather walk through a
forest of trees than through a subdivision of sticks. With today's
methods, we can't do both.
A clearcut forest, an eroded logging road, a hillside without topsoil, a
silted-in river, altered big game habitat, etc, is not my idea of
"low-impact".
2. We can (and are already trying to) use much less wood while keeping
current building styles. Engineered products, new framing layouts, and
modular sizing all offer savings.
3. There are as good or better materials available for structural and
weatherization applications.
4. After the above, there will be plenty enough wood available to use
where it counts, where we can feel it, and where it works well: interior
finishes and trim.
Please excuse any stridency in my reply; the time I spend hiking,
biking, running, skiing, and kayaking through our forests and woodlands
is very important to me. North America has an incredible natural
heritage, that is quite literally unique to this planet, and I don't want
to see it traded for construction expediency or marketability, especially
since such wastefullness and lack of forethought has already been
demonstrated to be unneccessary.
Buzz Burrell
Bolder Building
Boulder, Colorado
__________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
__________________________________________________________________