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.




    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    Perhaps the other point is the area given over to circulation - the bungalow will almost certainly have a worse net to gross ratio so you get "less" house

    It's also more difficult to service for systems that need short runs - HWS primarily - easier to stack similar functions and service them vertically - less material cost and less energy "lost"

    Regards

    Barney
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    However, bungalows don't have stairs which eat area out of both storeys (other than, typically, a bit of awkward storage space).
    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    True - although the trade off is probably net positive

    Regards

    Barney
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    "Cut it in half and put one on top gives two stories of 11.2m x 5.6m,"

    A house with that footprint would typically be terraced.
  1.  
    Lots of 1920's/30's semis about 5.5 - 6.5m wide, and 8+m deep. 5.6 is wide for a terrace in this neck of the woods.
    • CommentAuthorringi
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2016
     
    Posted By: Nick ParsonsLots of 1920's/30's semis about 5.5 - 6.5m wide, and 8+m deep. 5.6 is wide for a terrace in this neck of the woods.


    This is getting to the limit of what normal sized floor joists can cope with.
  2.  
    That’s a good response Ed. I was basing my thoughts on the possibility that a roof could be insulated with rockwool whereas a wall may need to use a rigid insulation which is about five times the cost for the same U value. I’m not sure how to cost the building elements more accurately for now.
  3.  
    ''This is getting to the limit of what normal sized floor joists can cope with.''

    Yes, but many of the 20s and 30s semis round here have 4 x 2 (100 x 50mm) joists with the span broken by sleeper walls. No joist in these houses would be spanning the full width.
    • CommentAuthorringi
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2016
     
    Posted By: Nick Parsons''This is getting to the limit of what normal sized floor joists can cope with.''

    Yes, but many of the 20s and 30s semis round here have 4 x 2 (100 x 50mm) joists with the span broken by sleeper walls. No joist in these houses would be spanning the full width.


    I was assuming the joists would run from the front and back walls to the "spine wall", so would be half the depth of the house. (Running them the other way don't work if the stairs are next to the party wall.) Sleeper walls don't help on the 1st floor.
    • CommentAuthorringi
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2016
     
    Posted By: EasyBuilderThat’s a good response Ed. I was basing my thoughts on the possibility that a roof could be insulated with rockwool whereas a wall may need to use a rigid insulation which is about five times the cost for the same U value. I’m not sure how to cost the building elements more accurately for now.


    It is hard to get enough space at the edge of a sloping roof for rockwool without increasing the height of the building, or lowing the ceiling.
  4.  
    Oh I agree – and the eaves are where you’d lose most heat. However, the point I was trying to illustrate with my slightly far fetched example was that the most cost effective shape depends upon the relative costs of the different building elements. For all I know walls could be >2.5 times more expensive per square meter than roofs and floors. And as others have mentioned above it also depends upon how useful the enclosed shape is. (An extreme example I’ve seen are the cubist houses in Rotterdam – which weren’t very popular until fitted with built-in furniture to make better use of the space.)
    • CommentAuthorringi
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2016
     
    One of the best designs in the document I linked to had a detached garage setback and next to the house, so it looked like it was part of the house. The garage roof extended to provide a covered walkway to the house door. Hence keeping the thermal envelope of the house nice and simple, while still making the building look like it had a complex shape.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2016
     
    Posted By: EasyBuilderOh I agree – and the eaves are where you’d lose most heat. However, the point I was trying to illustrate with my slightly far fetched example was that the most cost effective shape depends upon the relative costs of the different building elements. For all I know walls could be >2.5 times more expensive per square meter than roofs and floors.

    I can see your point in principle, but I [have to] assume that it isn't widely acknowledged in practice because the price differences aren't as extreme, or may even be reversed?
Add your comments

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

© Green Building Press