|
OKay, sorry, didn't quite know how to phrase it & didn't want to make assumptions.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Yeah, that sounds fine. I just wanted to make certain you weren't one of those starry-eyed "this is the perfect place, we're going to buy it despite all the warning signs and everything everyone's telling us" types. Which we've seen here more than once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Sloppy posted:Things you don't like to see in your 50' bow truss: It's tiger post time!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Sloppy posted:Things you don't like to see in your 50' bow truss: Now that I'm looking at this again, is there like, a specific direction you're supposed to put trusses like this so the grain is lined up properly? It seems like it wouldn't have cracked like that if either of the pieces were rotated 90 degrees so their grain was vertical rather than horizontal. Does that make it, I don't know, flex worse or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Now that I'm looking at this again, is there like, a specific direction you're supposed to put trusses like this so the grain is lined up properly? It seems like it wouldn't have cracked like that if either of the pieces were rotated 90 degrees so their grain was vertical rather than horizontal. Does that make it, I don't know, flex worse or something? How do you propose we go about finding a tree with a 15'-wide trunk?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Now that I'm looking at this again, is there like, a specific direction you're supposed to put trusses like this so the grain is lined up properly? It seems like it wouldn't have cracked like that if either of the pieces were rotated 90 degrees so their grain was vertical rather than horizontal. Does that make it, I don't know, flex worse or something? The grain axis is the axis that resists bending - if this were oriented any other way it would have disintegrated instead of just cracking a little.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:How do you propose we go about finding a tree with a 15'-wide trunk? Genetic engineering  slap me silly posted:The grain axis is the axis that resists bending - if this were oriented any other way it would have disintegrated instead of just cracking a little. That's sort of what I was thinking, that one way may be more "rigid" than the other but being more rigid just means that instead of bending or deforming it just straight-up snaps. Anyway thinks for clearing it up!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
During our inspection I ran all of the showers for about 45 minutes and looked for leaks. It was also rainy as hell and the basement stayed perfectly dry. When we moved in, the master bath's shower leaked into the kitchen on its first use, and the basement leaked on the first serious rain, getting worse each storm thereafter. You're going to miss stuff no matter how hard you look.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
I think this might be a reason so many old houses are around still. Water was never willingly invited inside. You had a spring or well, and a privy both located away from the house. Water really is the houses worst enemy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Water got in them all the time, they just let so much air through them that it dried out before destroying things. The biggest Building Science challenge in energy efficient structures isn't how to keep heat in/out, it's how to make sure the structure doesn't rot away now that your space conditioning isn't serving as moisture control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Mercury Ballistic posted:I think this might be a reason so many old houses are around still. Water was never willingly invited inside. You had a spring or well, and a privy both located away from the house. Water really is the houses worst enemy. Hahaha  Cedar shingles and thatch roofing would like to have a word with you. Also, I am ruefully eyeing what is left of my sill beams and yeah... that sure went well for them. Old houses rot too. Basically, I agree with zhentar here. The reason old houses stayed fairly rot free is because they built them with no vapor barrier, not as much HVAC capability, and very drafty windows and doors. It is hard to concentrate moisture in any meaningful way in that kind of construction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Fair enough. I also understand that old houses remaining are the lucky ones or just well built and or well oved unicorns of the house world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Mercury Ballistic posted:Fair enough. I also understand that old houses remaining are the lucky ones or just well built and or well oved unicorns of the house world. I grew up in a farmhouse that was built sometime in the 1910's, and right now it's held together by my mom's sheer force of will. Really it was doing alright until about 5 years ago when termites moved in, and now there's a chronic leak in the roof that my parents can't squirrel out so the cumulative water damage is getting to be too much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
30 Goddamned Dicks posted:I grew up in a farmhouse that was built sometime in the 1910's, and right now it's held together by my mom's sheer force of will. that's the trouble with new builds right there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
The biggest problem with new builds is that the stonework all uses mortar, instead of chiseling granite blocks to fit in dry. I wouldn't live in anything built after about the 15th century. Those buildings are remarkable. Foundations, doorways, windows and creches built as an isosceles trapezoid for earthquake stability
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:The biggest problem with new builds is that the stonework all uses mortar, instead of chiseling granite blocks to fit in dry. I wouldn't live in anything built after about the 15th century. And all with properly engineered drainage to boot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Hypothetically, assuming someone has unlimited funds and wants to create a home with all of the modern conveniences that won't need structural maintenance for at least 200 years, is it doable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Hypothetically, assuming someone has unlimited funds and wants to create a home with all of the modern conveniences that won't need structural maintenance for at least 200 years, is it doable? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Yes. Coated or stainless rebar high quality concrete - like, bridge-grade, or use the old Roman recipe if you can, which requires a specific pozzolana ash and is far more durable and ages better waterproof all the things with the best materials available build it on a steeply sloped hill directly on bedrock, with wide eaves and a copper roof. No structural wood. It'll last that long easily.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Then seal it up, dont use it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Then seal it up, dont use it. Nah, you can definitely use it. Heavily, even.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
DNova posted:Nah, you can definitely use it. Heavily, even. Be sure to hire a security guard to keep all the meth heads from stealing your roof.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:The biggest problem with new builds is that the stonework all uses mortar, instead of chiseling granite blocks to fit in dry. I wouldn't live in anything built after about the 15th century. It wasn't the shape of the buildings so much as the shape of the blocks in the masonry and how they were assembled. Basically they used regular shapes, no sudden corners, and minimized stress points where their structures could fail. kastein posted:Yes. No joke, but I have worked with a company that did the odd job like this for wealthy/crazy clients. One was for a mausoleum for his super wealthy family, and they basically used very high quality concrete, stainless/coated tungsten rebar, excellent drainage and a structural design that had tons of redundancy and overstrength. Other projects were designed to beyond design basis earthquake levels (nominally a typical building is designed for a 475 year return period earthquake, or if you're a hospital, a 2475 year earthquake). They designed theirs better than a hospital, and with some other bells and whistles to ensure their survival. If cost is no object, one can be very smart and make something truly long-lived.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Meth heads? Just electrify it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
streetlamp posted:Stolen from yospos pics thread Poor mans PoE
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:Meth heads? Just electrify it. That wouldn't stop any respectable meth head in my area. There have been instances around here of copper thieves cutting live high voltage wires.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
200 years really isn't a long time for a house. Stuff around me isn't that far off and realisitically, you're looking at new windows and external doors over that period. That said, I wouldn't put my money on a house built in the last 50 years doing so well, simply because the house builders make them as cheaply as possible. The saying that srpings to mind is: 'The Americans think 100 years is a long time, the British think 100 miles is a long way'
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
kastein posted:No structural wood. Structural wood is fine as long as you do it right. I grew up in a timber frame house the earliest parts of which were built in the 1300s (and latter parts in the 15 to 1700s), the vast majority of which is original, and has had major structural stiffening done only in the last 20 years. Helps to live somewhere without termites or carpenter ants, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
Most of the housing in my area was built around 1880-1890 and no one is in any rush to tear it down, 200 years wouldn't be unreasonable
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
The Townhouse I rent is going to be lucky to be standing in twenty years, let alone two-hundred.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
spog posted:200 years really isn't a long time for a house. This is old and sorry to everyone who has seen it but I can't resist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV2PbKpsMRk
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Yeah when I was staying in Prague we had a 800 year old tower next door to us, and most all the buildings on the block were at least 100 years old. All in tip top perfect condition, you just maintain them over the decades, upgrade as needing but the bones are solid. But dense urban buildings are designed to last, detached houses are always a sort of disposable class of building. Then again even in some newer areas, everything was solid concrete or CMU, even little houses. Little to no structural wood, always tile roofs no cheap shingles. All the windows and doors felt way more solid, everything was insulated much better too. It was like even houses were built to more commercial standards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
When I was a teenager my family moved to a rural village in Hampshire in the UK, where we lived for three years. There were a handful of thatched cottages in town, complete with dirt floors, and we got to go inside one (still lived in by a family). The timbers used to build the house were repurposed ship timbers, so they were even older than the house. The village church had been renovated in (vaguely recalling, might be a hundred years off) the fifteen century I think? E.g., parts of the original structure were much older than that. That said, there were only maybe six thatched cottages in the village, which must have originally had a couple hundred at least. So that's like a 2-4% survival rate. If you want your home to last a really, really long time, may I suggest finding a natural cave (not a limestone cavern, mind you) and moving in? We've got some that have survived basically intact for 10,000+ years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:If you want your home to last a really, really long time, may I suggest finding a natural cave (not a limestone cavern, mind you) and moving in? We've got some that have survived basically intact for 10,000+ years. I would actually do this. A+ 5/5 would cave dwell
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
They're a bit chilly, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:They're a bit chilly, though. You just aren't finding deep enough cave systems, clearly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Nah, depending on your location, fairly shallow caves can often sit at a perfect 70°, and at the very least, they tend to be SUPER consistent in temperature, so you don't get seasonal fluctuations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Caves: Not as cool as launch silos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:If you want your home to last a really, really long time, may I suggest finding a natural cave (not a limestone cavern, mind you) and moving in? We've got some that have survived basically intact for 10,000+ years. goon in a cave
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:Caves: Not as cool as launch silos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 11:34
|
|
