Maybe OT: Why do British new houses crack/sag/twist/... so much???

[oh]

I have never (and I speak from experience with having lived in brand new houses in Norway, Switzerland, France and now Scotland) ever seen new houses end up in such a sorry state within months of being built as here in the UK. My previous brand new house (major UK builder) had a few (!) visits from the NHBC, our current house is a conversion but the brand new house attached to ours, built as part of the re-development (replacing an old stable or God knows what), had a few surveyor visits before its first owners were satisfied that it didn't have serious faults, and a couple of brand new showhomes I've visited recently (as we're moving again, argh!) really should be considered as disgraceful by any proud builder (I will not mention their names...)

I know wood from my home country (Norway) is denser due to the climate (but surely that can't be the only explanation), French walls using plaster blocks (Lego style) instead of the UK wood+plasterboard obviously do not shrink a lot, and Swiss concrete-everywhere probably withstand even most current nuclear bombs, but I have a niggling feeling that building quality in this country has a looong way to go...

Is green wood straight from the forest the standard here???

[HLAH]

"oh" wrote

but I have a niggling feeling

No it's the fault of those bloody Norwegians, they keep all the good wood and ship all their crap here ;-)

H

[Mark]

snip

It's all down to a 4-letter word

Cost

-

[The3rd Earl Of Derby]

Nothing to do with the builders,blame your McAlpines,RedRow,Barrets ect Bosses they want the houses up in weeks at a cheap budget.

Thing about Norwegian houses is they burn ever so fast leaving just ashes...british houses also burn but the shell stays intact. :-)

How does it go now... ...Three little piggies...

[Steve Firth]

Since we import much of our wood from Norway, probably not.

[Steve Firth]

Sorry, missed that.

Green wood straight from the forest is the best form of construction in timber here. But the wood must be oak, not some crappy softwood. Although construction in green oak isn't *that* expensive and it does make a first class building.

[tony sayer]

In article , Mark writes

Cost.. of the Land on which to build them!..

[Owain]

Blame the general population who buy their houses from aforementioned speculative builders.

IIRC a far lower proportion of Brits self-build (by which I mean have any involvement in the building process) than in other countries, usually considering themselves lucky if the builder allows them to choose one of four colours of tiles in the bathroom.

and a nice clear site for rebuilding.

intact but wobbly and then may have to be demolished before rebuilding.

Owain

[The Natural Philosopher]

Er yes. Straight from Norway mostly.

Actually we have a peculiar climate here. RH in a *heated* house varies from up to 70% in summer, to next to bugger all in winter.

Meanwhile exterior wise its more the other direction - cold wet winter days mean its up around 90% in winter.

Its a hell of a strain to put on the wood.

But te real point is that due to te way teh planning land and constriction industries work, its very very hard these datys to 'buy a plot and build on it'

The expense to get a piece of land through planning is immense, and only the large companies can normally do this, and lay in the requisite services and access roads. THEY make their profit by selling jerry-built crap, built fast but not to last particularly. Building regs say nothing about cracking, so who cares?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well I beg to differ. since half my house is green oak and the rest is pressure treated softwood.

Guess which bit has gaps up to an INCH wide in it. Not the softwood, I can assure you.

They told me the oak would shrink, and my research confirmed that a 20 foot 12"x12" baulk would lose up to an inch in every dimension taking about 10 years to fully stabilise.

[Steve Firth]

Yes, and this is a problem in what way?

Correct, and that shrinkage is essential to the strength and stability of a building constructed in green oak. The main house here is constructed in green oak, 300 years old and still sound. All of the softwood parts get replaced on a continuous basis but the oak is untouched.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It depends whether or not you regard longevity as preferable to huge cracks. The OP did not, obviously.

I took out about 5 toms of rotten 'green' oak from the old house.

It doesn't last any longer than any other wood when sopping wet.

Green oak is for those hat like it: A soundly built dry house of pre-dried pressure treated softwood will last just as long.

[Steve Firth]

Can you point to any 300 year old houses built using pressure treated softwood?

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, but I can point to plenty of 300 year old timber framed houses that aren't framed in oak, around the world.

[Steve Firth]

Yes, Chestnut is also a good wood for timber frames.

[Doctor Drivel]

The public have Hobson's choice, as about 20 companies build most of the homes.

Yep, the problem is that land is rationed to build on creating an artificial land shortage, and the big 20 companies are in a position to get the land. Fixed.

Read:

Unaffordable Housing Fable & Myths:

Better Faster More: Homes Greener Cities: may take a little time more in downloading as they are on a server in South Africa.

[Doctor Drivel]

By God he has got it!!

[Matt]

From "Unaffordable Housing Fables & Myths" Page 25

[Doctor Drivel]

[fluffkin]

Erm... Can you point to a 300 year old softwood pressure treatment system?