ᐅ Solid masonry house built stone by stone, the ecological timber house, or...
Created on: 16 Jun 2017 20:09
D
dorosasa
Hello dear forum readers,
We are looking for some guidance to help us decide what and how we want to build.
A solid masonry house, ecological wooden house, or perhaps a house from a well-known builder on the market who also constructs to KfW 55 standard but uses materials like plastic, glass wool, and polystyrene in the wall assembly.
Our current favorite is a wooden house builder with a good reputation in the region, but who also expects appropriate payment. After a longer consultation in a show home of a large builder, we were advised to think carefully about what really matters to us in a house. Should the building envelope be ecologically flawless, or is it acceptable to use somewhat cheaper materials while still achieving the same performance and subsidies? Obviously, that saves money... but how did you decide?
We would appreciate any tips and remain
Best regards
dorosasa
We are looking for some guidance to help us decide what and how we want to build.
A solid masonry house, ecological wooden house, or perhaps a house from a well-known builder on the market who also constructs to KfW 55 standard but uses materials like plastic, glass wool, and polystyrene in the wall assembly.
Our current favorite is a wooden house builder with a good reputation in the region, but who also expects appropriate payment. After a longer consultation in a show home of a large builder, we were advised to think carefully about what really matters to us in a house. Should the building envelope be ecologically flawless, or is it acceptable to use somewhat cheaper materials while still achieving the same performance and subsidies? Obviously, that saves money... but how did you decide?
We would appreciate any tips and remain
Best regards
dorosasa
RobsonMKK schrieb:
The first point made by @haydee is quite accurate. That is why wooden houses are often not ecological, as the wood rarely comes from the local area. But it does exist. If you want to prioritize this, you naturally have to do some research on the matter.
It’s always a question of how you define ecological building and to what extent you can actually oversee the supply chain.
365mm (14 inches) aerated concrete requires about the same amount of primary energy to produce as 175mm (7 inches) calcium silicate brick with 160mm (6 inches) EPS insulation on top. By the way, with mineral wool, the external wall insulation (EWI) construction performs significantly worse than with EPS in terms of primary energy. So, is EPS then more ecological? ;-)
365mm (14 inches) aerated concrete requires about the same amount of primary energy to produce as 175mm (7 inches) calcium silicate brick with 160mm (6 inches) EPS insulation on top. By the way, with mineral wool, the external wall insulation (EWI) construction performs significantly worse than with EPS in terms of primary energy. So, is EPS then more ecological? ;-)
I believe that when people talk about building eco-friendly, they often actually mean building healthy. The residents of new homes want to do everything possible to avoid inhaling harmful substances. This can be achieved just as well with a stone house as with wood. (Instead of PVC or vinyl flooring, it is better to choose tiles or linoleum.)
Then there is a group that focuses more on minimizing energy waste, ideally aiming for zero CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. These are the KfW enthusiasts. But do they fully consider how much energy is used to produce all the membranes, tapes, insulation mats, pump housings, and so on?
Then there is a group that focuses more on minimizing energy waste, ideally aiming for zero CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. These are the KfW enthusiasts. But do they fully consider how much energy is used to produce all the membranes, tapes, insulation mats, pump housings, and so on?
"Eco-friendly," as mentioned above by @haydee, costs quite a bit of money. This is usually done in the passive house sector and ... planned by an architect experienced in this area.
Everything else is a major compromise and an admission to oneself of not having the funds for consistent ecological building.
I personally tend to prefer solid construction for healthier building.
Regards, Yvonne
Everything else is a major compromise and an admission to oneself of not having the funds for consistent ecological building.
I personally tend to prefer solid construction for healthier building.
Regards, Yvonne
K
Knallkörper18 Jun 2017 15:43An ecological approach also means that the house lasts a long time. Based on my experience with timber houses, I assert that a solid construction, whether monolithic or with facing brickwork, is simply more durable.