ᐅ Survey: Which Building Material/Construction Method Did You Choose?

Mycraft schrieb:
@Nordlys

.. and polystyrene on the wall bothers very few people if you look at the new residential areas.
.

Nobody really minds it on a mattress, a yogurt cup, the sofa, or the toothbrush either.

On the topic of sound insulation: we have sand-lime brick, but I don’t notice any difference compared to houses in the area made of brick or aerated concrete (all are located in quiet neighborhoods, of course, it’s different near highways). This issue is generally greatly overestimated in single-family homes. Around here, aerated concrete is the cheapest building material, so it is used frequently. Sand-lime brick plus external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) is more expensive.

to mycraft
There was one reply to opalau, which basically said that they would of course have chosen sand-lime brick instead of aerated concrete, but that they do not live near a highway.
I understand that in the south there is hardly any aerated concrete, but rather bricks. So we can conclude that as builders, we don't really have a choice; it depends on the location whether the walls are white or yellow-brown. Wood construction works everywhere, that is certain. And it is also certain that wood construction can achieve the best building envelopes in terms of thermal insulation. However, this probably does not work without plastic or insulation fibers, which are certainly not sheep’s wool. Haydee should know exactly how such a high-performance building envelope is constructed. I’m not an eco-activist, but I think about it and tell myself, okay, to gain the last few percent in terms of CO2 reduction, I probably have to transport quite a lot of CO2-intensive construction chemicals by truck all over the country. It would be interesting to see an actual balance of this. For that reason, I am skeptical about Passive House, but everyone has their own approach, right. Karsten

24 cm (9.5 inches) perforated clay bricks + 12 cm (5 inches) external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS)

A monolithic wall would have been thicker. Since a solid wall was clearly the preferred choice from the start, it was important for us to achieve optimal thermal insulation within a reasonable wall thickness and at a sensible cost. Originally, calcium silicate bricks were also considered, but in that case, the external insulation would have needed to be significantly thicker.

Mycraft schrieb:
The thread should cover the entire D as well, not just the northern part.

Well, hardly anyone here on the forum is building "throughout the entire D," but many are building just one house, in a specific area, and there are regional preferences (and even regional building materials). For example, in "my" area: northern Rhineland-Palatinate, Vulkaneifel / Neuwied Basin. There is still pumice in the ground there, which can be made into blocks. These materials have proven and popular qualities. They are not a miracle solution, not some revolutionary discovery; but they are no worse than, for example, aerated concrete. So it makes sense not to bring materials from far away when you can get something locally of equivalent quality. Here, people build "entire houses" from it—though increasingly using stud walls for "interior, non-load-bearing" partitions.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Nordlys schrieb:
to mycraft
There was a reply to opalau essentially saying that he would have chosen sand-lime brick instead of aerated concrete, but he doesn’t live near a highway.
I understand that in the south there is hardly any aerated concrete, but plenty of brick. So we can conclude that as builders, we don’t really have a choice; it depends on the building location whether it’s white or yellow-brown. Wood construction works everywhere, that’s certain. And that with timber construction you can achieve the best building envelopes in terms of thermal insulation is also certain. But that probably doesn’t happen without plastics or insulation fibers, which certainly aren’t sheep’s wool. Haydee would know exactly how such a superior building envelope is constructed. I am not an eco-zealot, but I do think about it and tell myself that to gain those last few percent in CO2 reduction, I probably have to transport a lot of CO2-intensive construction chemicals across the country by truck. It would be interesting to see an overall assessment of that. I am therefore skeptical about passive houses, but everyone has their own approach, right. Karsten

Karsten, your skepticism is justified, and instinctively, I’d say we need to save a lot to offset the CO2 from production.
I’ve also received criticism in this forum because I don’t see massive timber as the ecological miracle solution.
I have always wanted a passive house; it fascinates me. My husband agrees and supports it.
Originally, we wanted a solid masonry house as a passive house with lots of extras like a cast iron stove, a natural swimming pond, and an extra-high garage with a hydraulic lift platform. After the first discussions, reality set in. We had to cut back, make compromises, find the right building partner (everyone can do a foundation slab, but it got more complicated with the slope) – and we would have given up on the passive house if the building partner couldn’t manage it.

Wall structure: 10 cm (4 inches) wood, 30 cm (12 inches) Neopor (expanded polystyrene).
With mineral insulation, it would have been closer to 60 cm (24 inches) of insulation and wouldn’t have been built.
Cellulose would have been possible: 30 cm (12 inches) plus 6 cm (2.5 inches) of some other insulation boards.

haydee schrieb:
I have already received criticism here in the forum because I don’t see solid wood as an ecological miracle solution.

Have you?

If you seriously follow the idea of saving CO2, anything that involves cutting down trees is at best counterproductive. The only argument always brought up in favor of this is "the regrowth". Well, oil was also once trees, what I burn there grows back too – just as fast as if I had burned wood.

Now, in house construction, the CO2 remains stored because wood is used here but not as fuel. Still, trees and thus CO2 sinks are removed from the environment. Newly growing trees only reach their original CO2 consumption after 30 to 40 years. Whether this, purely from a CO2 perspective, is better than external wall insulation systems, concrete production, or mining pumice stone: it is questionable.

So, anyone who criticized you can come and report to me. The idea that using renewable materials is more ecological than anything else is a green myth. Before anything can regrow, it first has to be completely cut down.