Thickness of ceiling joists in loft

Page 1 of 5  
My ex-council house semi is basic in design, but built like the proverbial brick "outhouse". Since all the internal walls, ground floor and first floor, are of solid masonry, the joists in the loft seem really strong with no discernible spring when one steps along one. The joists are now partially boarded over, but I was wondering what a brand new house is like in the loft. In a modern house, the walls are usually stud type, i.e. not load-bearing. So how strong are the ceiling joists in the loft in a modern house? How to they stay up without load-bearing walls to support them?
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only on the upper levels usually and around the downstairs toilet.

They are ruff trusses. Each truss is all one piece and spans the width of the house. The internal walls usually have a wood piece here and there from floor to roof trusses giving extra mid way support on some.
Some modern house are very well made and very sturdy. The problem with older houses is they lack insulation and cost a fortune to run.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The problems with most modern houses are that the ceilings are too low and the rooms too narrow. No dount all thanks to ergonomics - the science of making things just too small to be comfortable.
Today's obsession with environment (only the outdoor environment, mind, which is not where most people spend their time) means a lack of fresh air and higher levels of pollutants indoors. When I lived in a new flat, I felt like I was always getting a cold (that bunged up feeling). As soon as I moved to a draughty old victorian house with single glazing and open fires, I felt much healthier.
Stuff the heating costs, health is more important than some eco nonsense.
Mal

from
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with that 110%. We are more concerned with keeping boring green fields than caring for people.

felt
fires,
Downlighters and walls light make the ceilings taller. Ventilation is easy to install into any house or flat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and
of
Making each room a foot taller won't affect land useage. Adding a couple of feet in each direction to the rooms could be done too, with a minimal reduction in the number of houses on a plot (just put them closer together if needs be). That's all it needs to make most new homes massively more liveable - and it wouldn't add much to the building cost either.
The problem is not lack of land, but lack of regulations specifying minimum dimensions for new builds.

air
easy
No, it's taller walls that make ceilings higher. Downlighters just make them brighter. I'll still scuff my head on a dangly light fitting, no matter how well lit the surrounding walls.
No ventillation that would pass any eco-test is as good as my draughty windows and open fireplaces for keeping the air fresh. Inefficient, I know, but I feel better for it.
Mal
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very true, and using basements won't either.

Or just give more land. Over development is rife,and Two Jags gave into the Countryside Alliance and is insisting on tighter development. Ludicrous.

very true.

Very true. There is not lack of land, it is "available building land" that is the problem. the will not release it.

Physically, yet mentally how the room is arranged and coloured can make a room seem twice the size.

Dimmers can take care of that.

Don't ha have dangling lights. I don't. The ceilings appears much taller.

A Vet Axia unit in the loft blowing into the hall, via the ceiling makes all the difference. Easily retrofitted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the ceilings appear 'taller' you must be walking on the walls.
--
Chris Green

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
Near where I live, there are plans to build 6500 new homes, with associated schools, hospitals, indistrial units and a science park. The homes are going on greenfield sites, the industry on brown. The floodplain area is going to be parkland. All fairly sensible.
The site is only 350 acres, so it's going to be a squeeze as usual, but I bet if the developers had twice the land, they would build twice the number of houses, not make each one bigger.
I'll say again - there needs to be some regulations covering minimum room dimensions. That is what will make a difference to the vast majority of people who can only afford one of these cookie-cutter estate houses.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Parker Morris in the 1960's laid down minimum floor areas for Council housing but I don't think it place of HMG to tell people how big their rooms should be - if people want to pay big money for a Barratt house or Victorian cottage with tiny rooms that is their choice. We could (in places already are) adopt the system of quoting the internal floor area so you could very quickly see whether it was spacious or poky, and such information might (or might not) change buyers perceptions
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mal

I'm not suggesting the room size is decided by HMG - just some *minimum* dimensions - just like you have minimum standards applied to other aspects of building. Why shouldn't room size be included as a measure of quality?
It's not the choice of most people to live in a pokey rabbit hutch. Not everyone has the luxury of enough money to have a true choice. The price of the smallest hosues will always tend to creep up to whatever the maximum the average first time buyer can afford. If the smallest houses were a bit bigger, they wouldn't necessarily be more expensive to buy, but it would mean an improvement in the quality of the country's housing stock, and in the living conditions of its population.
In fact, rather than build ever smaller starter homes, perhaps the planning authorities should encourage the building of lots of large houses instead. That would take the pressure of housing prices by reducing the demand from people with loads of cash. Eventually this would come through to more sustainable prices at the lower end.
Mal
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But don't forget that HMG get extra taxes by having more houses, in the form of council tax which is applied to each property, so it's not in HMG's interest to expand the footprint size of new houses - in fact the reverse is true.
If you have two houses occupying AxB footprint then I believe the council tax for those two properties will give government rather more than having a single dwelling occupying 2xAxB. Not forgetting that the latter house might well be in the topmost band so no matter what size it was increased to it would still pay the same council tax.
PoP
Sending email to my published email address isn't guaranteed to reach me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mal

I think it is. At least the minimum sizes. A 3 bed house should have minimum room sized as they generally have 5 people in them. You need a toiler downstairs, so they can give minimum room sizes, and also minimum sized plots and proximity etc.

In certain price brackets you have no choice, they are all poky.

Not about buyers, it is about minimum living space in new houses, although the squ foot is useful.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If minimum house room and plot sizes were in force they could not build the sort of developments we all hate. Also with a certain amount of homes mandatory open land should be there, etc, etc.

Which is the majority of people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No!!
Detached houses that are detached only by a foot or two look utterly stupid and give one no privacy whatsoever! Do NOT recommend this suggestion at all, sorry!
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not as bad as "link detached" (which are joined by the garage) and are, in my book, called "terraced".
One of the requirements when we started looking for detached houses was that you should be able to walk all the way round them.
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13 Feb 2004 23:27:51 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:

No way! Actually, some detached houses that are so close as to be practically touching each other, are *worse* than link detached. Because all the link detached properties I have seen are linked by the garages, the main house shell being further away from its neighbour by a greater distance than other so-called detached houses where the gap between is barely wide enough to walk down.
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In London in the late 1930's Wates built thousands of link detached chalet houses, flank walls about 3' apart with a linking arch across the front. I was told that at the time for rating purposes they had to be classed as s/d as they were unarguably joined to another house, but in terms of noise etc they were detached.
See typical picture at http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-bin/agent.pl?agentid )92&opt=prop&pid8534
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Huge wrote:

http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-bin/agent.pl?agentid )92&opt=prop&pid 8534
Typical of London. All the front gardens are being stripped out, paved and car parks made of them, giving hideous appearance. In Chiswick, etc, the gardens in front of the terraced houses have virtually all gone, giving the streets an appalling appearance of car butted up to the front windows. Making car parks of front gardens should be stopped. And those converted turned back to gardens. The more you encourage people to have and park cars the worse it gets, where the car takes over our lives. The more obstacles you put in the way the less people will use cars. In London few people really need a car.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If public transport were cheaper, I'd say you have a point. But it's not cheap, is it?
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Huge wrote:

9
and
the
cars
obstacles
Cheaper than a car which will only sit in traffic jam. the point is the looks: gardens are disappearing, and pollution cars bring.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.