Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


widget @ surfing-waves.com




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJun 21st 2013 edited
     
    If you had a copper roof that was forty years old would you sell it and replace it with tiles?

    A copper roof should last over a hundred years so why replace it mid life with a short lived alternative?
  1.  
    No, unless my insurance co. insisted!

    Very nickable!
  2.  
    Is it leaking ?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2013
     
    It will be when you let us know where it is :wink:
  3.  
    I've a client interested in copper guttering , I did raise concerns about theft, which he hadn't considered.
    Anyone know if you can get it powder coats to disguise it?
    Metal theft is very common in my area, drain cover etc. One customer came home from work to find someone had hacked of his lead work above his bay windows , damaging the render , bay ceiling , about £1200 worth of damage for £20 scrap :sad:
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2013 edited
     
    During WW2 the British Government laid a large copper cable from Porthcurno to the Tamar, and beyond, if you want to know what happened to it Google BBC Radio 4 Kneebone Bonanza.

    http://sdrv.ms/14p9ntH
    • CommentAuthorwindy lamb
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2013
     
    The copper roofs on the observatories at UCL were replaced after only 200 years, reckon there was another 50 years in them, 30 years on and they are still there.
    If we got rid of our stuff that might get stolen we all would have nothing.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2013
     
    So replacing it is insane then?
    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2013
     
    Not insane no - what's the expected life of the building ?

    In my experience, it's not that uncommon to find a gross mismatch in the material quality and longevity of a variety of discrete building parts - so having a roof covering good for 200 + years on a building where everything else has a 40 or 60 year life is a bit nuts - and the client may well be sensible to sell off the asset and use a tile which gives him say 30 years - which may be what he wants out of his building anyway.

    regards

    Barney
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2013
     
    No building should have that shorter design life.
    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2013
     
    Nice rhetoric Tony - however, in the real world everything has a cost.

    Yes, we may well have clients that know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, but it's no good moaning that you'd like structure, windows, doors and roof that have a 100+ year design life when it's a spec. building going up on a plot on an out of town developement park or it's social housing being built to a cost or it's a school or hospital being paid for down the PFI PPP route.

    Or in a similar vein, that the bulding is now needing to be designed for a 1x 10^-3 flood event or a 1 x 10^-4 seismic event - which costs quite a bit of money up front - for a product that's only required to be there for the next 30 or 60 years (or whatever the design criteria are).

    Start thinking like that and what's so wrong with cheap and effective timber or steel frame buildings with short (ish) lifetimes but capable of full recycling of contents.

    By all means lets have buidings that are "loose fit" and adaptable over time - but if that means clearing a site after say 60 years and rebuilding, that could actually be more environmentally friendly that building structure that has a 200 yeardesign life.

    Look at our victorian housing stock - if they hadn't been well built (to the standards and thinking of the time) tyhen we would have swept them away lomg ago and replaced them with something a little less energy hungry and totally unfit for anything other than tinkered, playing round the edges refurbishment.

    Think it through in terms of welsh slate roofing 90% of London housing - was it a good idea ?

    Regards

    Barney
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2013
     
    I am with you there Barney.
    I think that people get confused with comparing Georgian and Victorian housing with 1950's to1970's mass produced housing. Both were mass produced (actually going back a little further most mining towns look the same from Scotland to Cornwall), just different materials and architects/town planners.

    I am all for cheap housing that can be replaced as society changes.
    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2013
     
    Well, flexibility is the key - and the approach taken will differ from sector to sector in reality

    As we say, It might be nice to design a primary school that has sufficient lifespan so it can turn into a chiropody clinic and give the occupants a cradle to grave experience - but in reality ?

    Housing, for sure is a prime candidate - but first we'll have to get over that peculiar UK mentailty that housing is permanent and increases in value. Once we clear that hurdle, what's wrong with high efficiency, high density "park homes", in clusters, in the green belt that have no intrinsic value after 30 years other than recovering the material value - no one will worry because buying one will be like buying a car - we expect it to lose value from day one as we use it.

    For sure the below ground infrastructure, bases etc can be designed for longevity (lets say 200 years) - but the above ground superstructure may well have been replaced half a dozen or more times by then - it wouldn't take long to work out the sweet spot in terms of materials and energy in and what that costs over XX years to decide the optimum replacement cycle.

    Equally we may decide that mass concrete structures of long life with internal pods of short life are the way to go

    Ahh well - back to reality

    Regards

    Barney
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2013
     
    I have often though that if you put in the infrastructure i.e. roads, sewage, mains etc, then have a large tombola with building foot prints in it, sell tickets at £2000 a go, spin the tombola, take out the foot print shape, then randomly have it thrown at a map of the 'town', line up with nearest infastructure and allow the 'owner' to build what they like there. Think some interesting towns may appear. Once it is all built the horse trading can start.
    Be fun and has to be a better way to build a town than a highly controlled and limited council doing it. You may end up with a new St. Ives or Bourton-on-the-Water, or even a new Basildon.

    Now back to reality :cry:

    (no one won the Euro on Friday)
    • CommentAuthorwindy lamb
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2013
     
    Yes Tony it was madness replacing the copper at the time, especially as the rest of the building was Portland Stone and grade 1 listed and good for a thousand years. They must have won that Euro-million or something!
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press