The programme showing tonight is a prefab from the US. If I remember correctly it consists of the gerbil covering up the problems of translation.
The yanks are buggers for unit construction. Not that prefabs don't have an honourable history. Think Tudor houses. King Solomon's temple was a prefab. If God designed one they must be good.
The problem over here is that we are jigsaw enthusiasts and that there are no teams that specialise in installations of specific parts. (With the exception of window installers.) See how it all goes pear shaped at
9 pm on Channel 4. It aught to be shown back to back with the German version.
I believe that the Gerries got their act together from post WWII US intiatives. God help us if the Iraqis get their act together!
I'm sorry, but I just couldn't build a clapboard house like this one. All those panels just looked like a Wendy house to me. Sorry, but I'm a bricks and mortar man. Timber frame perhaps, in the way the Amish construct their buildings. But this thing was just nailed together from bits of plywood and 4 x 2s. I bet it will not last 50 years, let alone 150. One decent gale and it will be spread all over the Sussex countryside.
Also, the presenter ought to be shot. He is so full of glee for when things go wrong. His voice is just dripping with Schadenfreude. Can't stand the guy. When the lady pushed the champers bottle into the foundations, I thought, ah, I know of someone else she could shove in while she's at it.
As people in that industry go, I suppose he's not that bad. TV is not really a place where reality counts for much. Media at its hype sort of thing requires gloss for the mass market.
If you know people and what to look for, you can read volumes between the lines. Or perhaps it's just that I have had some experience on sites.
I was watching Jackie Chan strut his stuff last night (banal what?) but I have it taped I hope.
Oh dear. My house is built from plywood nailed onto 7x3... its stood teh gales so far :-)
Thats roughly ghow ANY timber framed house is built. The ply makes an incredbly good stressed skin - much better than traditional lath and mortar render. You can go well down on the framing.
The best two on TV for property are Phil Spencer and Kirstie Allsop. They are sensible, well-dressed, well-mannered people and are a pleasure to watch as they genuinely attempt to help the clients, not just make a TV programme. The worst (by far) are the horrid woman and man who appear in a programme on BBC2 (Safe as Houses, I believe it is called).
The best TV cook is Rick Stein. Down to earth, excellent food, supports simple cooking, nice little dog.
No. Many properties with timber as the load-bearing structure are far more substantial. Do the Amish use plywood? In any case, I was talking about 4 x 2, and you've suddenly bumped it up to 7 x 3, rather a different kettle of splinters!
Its not the strength that is a problem - even with 4x2. The plywood takes the vast majority of teh lodas. The 4x2 is merely a frame to stop it buckling - see Eulers slender column theorem etc etc. You could nail the ply on its own together and provided it didn't lift off the foundations, it would be reasonably strong, and stronger by the addition of joists across it at roof and floor levels. In the case of wind pressure it would almost certainly be stronger than a single layer of blockwork. Blocks cannot take lateral pressure - they rely on the weight of the block and the friction in the mortar joints to avoid collapse, which is sudden and catastrophic. A timber structure can absorb far more energy by flexing and bending.
Stressed skins were not understood or widely used until plywood became available - a traditional timber framed house stands alone as a strong braced frame, and the cladding adds little or nothing to the strength. Its usually only wattle and daub anyway or clapboard. Modern stressed skin construction is infinitely better, as long as the ply - which adds considerable stability and tensile strength - is secured firmly all over.
Esssentally a stressed skin ply house merely needs some way of stopping the panels flexing: Tying them togther via the roof, and floor joists and internal walls is generally more than adequate. The internal frame dimensions reflect more a need to have adequate insulation depth than structural stiffness. In my house some of the internal walls were covered in ply themselves, and the joists herringboned, to get the stiffness up. Those are 6x2 or 6x3 walls I think in that section. The 7" stuff is more to match the oak pseudo traditonal frame of the 'old' part.
All checked ovver by structiral engineers etc.
In practice its a curious house. Very flexible. If an outer door slams the whole house shakes a little. The whole feel 'sounds wooden' rather than 'sounds blockwork'. I actually like that. YMMV.
I was curious about the internal walls. Did it really save time adding pigments to the plaster to avoid painting? What a streaky mess, and what a ghastly colour for indoors. Red oxide by the look of it. Guaranteed to make the occupants feel agitated if the colour theorists are to be believed. I wonder what the books she writes are about.
Yuk, I would absolutely hate it! All modern houses seem to flex somewhat when one is walking around them. Not so with my ex-council house, which has solid walls throughout and feels much more substantial as a result. That's because it is! If I want a garden shed, I'll go to B&Q...
HomeOwnersHub website 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.