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
Alex85 schrieb:
365mm (14 inches) aerated concrete requires roughly the same amount of primary energy to produce as 175mm (7 inches) calcium silicate brick with 160mm (6 inches) EPS insulation added. By the way, in terms of primary energy, the ETICS wall system with mineral wool performs significantly worse than with EPS. So does that mean EPS is more ecological? ;-) Even though "eco" doesn’t automatically mean "organic," petrochemicals are the last thing I think of in this context.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
If choosing ecological options, sustainability should be the priority.
Stone built wall by wall generally lasts longer than wood. According to magazines and various unverified online sources, the lifespan cited is about 80 years for wood versus over 100 years for stone, as far as I know.
In my experience, timber frame houses are by no means cheaper than solid construction, especially when you specify exactly the same features.
In general, but especially when ecological building is important, insulation made of polystyrene or similar materials is absolutely out of the question. Contrary to the manufacturer’s claims, it is indeed flammable (hopefully never as severe as recently seen in a house fire in England), and according to many opinions I have read and heard, it is considered hazardous waste from the start and does not last 80 years, but rather tends to degrade or decay sooner.
For me, only mineral wool insulation or monolithic construction is acceptable here. Mineral wool is available with a hardened outer layer suitable for plastering, or a cavity wall construction is necessary (for example, a brick cladding that does not require repainting = even better ecologically).
My advice: ask many construction companies and architects for quotes, all on a fixed price basis and with the same specifications (follow up on additional costs for specific features that other suppliers include in their price).
Stone built wall by wall generally lasts longer than wood. According to magazines and various unverified online sources, the lifespan cited is about 80 years for wood versus over 100 years for stone, as far as I know.
In my experience, timber frame houses are by no means cheaper than solid construction, especially when you specify exactly the same features.
In general, but especially when ecological building is important, insulation made of polystyrene or similar materials is absolutely out of the question. Contrary to the manufacturer’s claims, it is indeed flammable (hopefully never as severe as recently seen in a house fire in England), and according to many opinions I have read and heard, it is considered hazardous waste from the start and does not last 80 years, but rather tends to degrade or decay sooner.
For me, only mineral wool insulation or monolithic construction is acceptable here. Mineral wool is available with a hardened outer layer suitable for plastering, or a cavity wall construction is necessary (for example, a brick cladding that does not require repainting = even better ecologically).
My advice: ask many construction companies and architects for quotes, all on a fixed price basis and with the same specifications (follow up on additional costs for specific features that other suppliers include in their price).
11ant schrieb:
Even though "eco" does not necessarily mean "organic," petrochemicals are the last thing I think of in this context.That’s why I included the wink. For most people, EPS (expanded polystyrene) is the last material that comes to mind when discussing ecological building. However, it depends on how you define ecological building. The overall energy balance, including transport and eventual demolition with disposal, is something no one can really estimate accurately because, as Knallkörper points out, it heavily depends on the service life of the building. Just the issue of transport alone is already very complex. Some have a sand-lime brick factory nearby; others have a plant for porous clay blocks...
Kaspatoo schrieb:
In general, but especially when ecological building is important, in my view, insulation made of polystyrene foam or similar materials is absolutely out of the question. I agree. In my opinion, it's a reckless idea to effectively postpone the problem of hazardous waste by turning it into products with a "use," reclassifying it, and then sticking it onto house walls. Every homeowner gets their own "Gorleben" in miniature. Oh wait, the dioxin issue was Seveso after all ;-)
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Phew, there are definitely many more unpleasant substances used in prefabricated houses than in current external wall insulation systems. Also, the stone layer behind them generally lasts much longer 😉 In 50 years, there will surely be far superior external wall insulation systems available for replacement, without having to demolish the entire house 😀
Do opponents of external wall insulation actually avoid perimeter insulation? That’s basically the same thing. There, the insulation is buried, which would be an appropriate comparison to the Gorleben controversy 😉
Or just build solid double-wall construction 🙂
The best approach is to build with locally available materials if you really want to build ecologically... Then the budget hardly matters.
Do opponents of external wall insulation actually avoid perimeter insulation? That’s basically the same thing. There, the insulation is buried, which would be an appropriate comparison to the Gorleben controversy 😉
Or just build solid double-wall construction 🙂
The best approach is to build with locally available materials if you really want to build ecologically... Then the budget hardly matters.
B
Bieber081519 Jun 2017 10:04A single-family house is just as ecological as an SUV with a hybrid engine.
We have sand-lime brick with external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS)
- Solid construction --> good feeling.
- Sand-lime brick --> high bulk density, excellent sound insulation, high thermal phase shift, slim interior walls.
- ETICS --> affordable, high thermal insulation, "relatively" easy to seal.
Also, sand-lime brick/ETICS was the standard used by the developer who had the "our" dream plot.
dorosasa schrieb:Yes, that’s exactly what I wanted to ask: What is important to you?
what really matters to you in a house.
We have sand-lime brick with external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS)
- Solid construction --> good feeling.
- Sand-lime brick --> high bulk density, excellent sound insulation, high thermal phase shift, slim interior walls.
- ETICS --> affordable, high thermal insulation, "relatively" easy to seal.
Also, sand-lime brick/ETICS was the standard used by the developer who had the "our" dream plot.
Similar topics