No Flakeboard House

[MilkyWhy]

Is it possible to have a new house built with actual wood...instead of flakeboard and other crap they use?

[Dan]

Sure! I doubt you could find a builder to do it except on a time and materials basis. Both labor and material costs would be very high and it would not result in a better house, IMHO.

[Gene]

Try spray on concrete. I've heard it's faster, cheaper and best of all, fireproof!

[Joseph Meehan]

Sure. However why do you want to pay more for materials and labor when you don't gain anything?

When used where they should be used those "crap" materials you are talking about are often better than "actual wood." It not only can save labor, but it can produce a better product.

I suspect what prompts your question is the misuse of materials. That is done for one reason, to cut cost. If you want to pay more for better quality, some of those manufactured wood products may be replaced with traditional products, but many others will remain because they are just better for some uses.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Sure. IT will cost more.

How about a concrete insulated house? Check out insulating concrete forms.

and are just two of them.

[Pop]

Actually, it's pretty common in most areas, especially the south where water damage isn't so bad.

[Pop]

Well, not really fireproof, 'cause the rest of hte sticks will still burn and firestops, etc. are still required. And the roof's probably going to be shingles, which burn great.

[Pop]

| | When used where they should be used those "crap" materials you are | talking about are often better than "actual wood." It not only can save | labor, but it can produce a better product. == Disagree. I can cite many lawsuits and damaged homes due to humidity/vapor/water penetration into the corners, eves, soffits, foundations, etc. of such houses. Roof replacement is where the defects are usually discovered in this area. A guy wants a new roof over the old one, they come out, check it, and have to replace some of the underlayment, and then discover parts need replacement all the way to ground level in some places, especially north walls and doors and windows. It's only OK when not exposed to high humidity or any type of condensation. The glues have great strength, but even the fire-proofed stuff comes apart due to the low strength of the fibres and particles in it.

It's OK in -some- climates, not many, as in NOT Florida or northern states.

Pop

| | I suspect what prompts your question is the misuse of materials. That | is done for one reason, to cut cost. If you want to pay more for better | quality, some of those manufactured wood products may be replaced with | traditional products, but many others will remain because they are just | better for some uses. | | -- | Joseph E. Meehan | | 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math | | |

[Pop]

Those are interesting. Even more interesting to me are underground single-story homes. The garage is usually on the roof in those. Easy to heat, cool, keep comfortable in general, very level utilities. Course, the sun-tubes & mirrors are a little expensive, but done right, it's great, IMO. I almost wish I could do it all over again just so I could look into it seriously.

Pop

[Joseph Meehan]

Disagree with what? I wrote: "When used where they should be used ... " That part of my statement MUST be read in order for the rest to make sense. Please read the whole thing. Clearly the examples you use show situations where they are not used as they should be used.

[Pop]

... | >>

| >> When used where they should be used those "crap" materials you are | >> talking about are often better than "actual wood." It not only can save | >> labor, but it can produce a better product. | > == Disagree. I can cite many lawsuits and damaged homes due to | > humidity/vapor/water penetration into the corners, eves, soffits, | > foundations, etc. of such houses. | | Disagree with what? I wrote: "When used where they should be used ... | " That part of my statement MUST be read in order for the rest to make | sense. Please read the whole thing. Clearly the examples you use show | situations where they are not used as they should be used. | |...

I disagree with: Those crap materials are better than wood (unequivocally NOT!), and what you're talking about - you have a lot to say but then increase your vaguery with "where they should be used" in the context of crap materials. Where they should be used is pertinent to the comm here and you skipped over it. Thus, i disagree with you.

This is the only courtesy of a reply you will receive from me - my job is done here. There is no need to rechew fat.

Pop

[Phisherman]

There are log homes and other houses made without composite materials. Expect higher material and labor costs. Same goes for furniture.

[Joseph Meehan]

Sorry you are having a bad day. Try re-reading and rethinking the whole thing if a day or two when you are felling better.

For just one example, a properly designed engineered joist using some of those materials you are talking about, is not only cheaper, lighter, easier to work with, but is less likely to bounce, squeak or have other problems than using standard solid wood joist.

I feel you are confusing the use of the cheapest possible product with the proper use of new products. There are far more examples of the former than the later.