I remember seeing a building under construction in Germany in 2000 in which the floors were solid wood panels, and thinking, why the heck would someone do that when they could use joists? Maximizing the amount of wood in a building is wrong-headed.
A team I've been on is finishing a 3 story, 30,000 sf laboratory building of glulams and CLT. The scale of the spaces means this structural approach replaces steel and concrete. This application makes sense to me.
Note that protection of the wood panels from rain during construction is important, especially if it is going to remain exposed. Using more organic materials subject to mold and decay means upgrading site protection practices. I recently consulted on a project in which straw panels got seriously wet and the straw had to be removed and replaced with another insulation. The manufacturer is considering wrapping future product in plastic membrane to avoid this occurring - this is not an environmental upgrade!
You have it exactly right Marc. There are low rise building types where light wood frame is not a good fit, and at those it may make good sense both environmentally and economically to use mass timber for structure. Your example being a fine one. Mass timber does not makes sense at low rise residential buildings, basically anything up to five or six stories. Certainly, one can do it, but they ought not to be attempting to make a case they are doing it for environmental or economic reasons.
I am guessing one thing you noticed and understood when observing those solid wood floors in Germany so many years ago, is not only the lack of joists but also the lack of cavities. Few people really understand and appreciate the true innovation that light wood frame was (and still is) as a construction technology, born as it was some 190 years ago in Chicago. And what is almost the most singularly genius element of the technology is not the wood itself, but rather those cavities that occur in the system, situated between the wood structural members. The utility of those cavities is under appreciated, but truly innovative. Those cavities did not serve much function in the 1800s when the technology was originally developed, but as buildings have evolved over time the cavities are essential to how other systems are economically (if not always seamlessly) integrated into the buildings. The “cavity” is almost an afterthought to most people…it deserves more appreciation!
I'm a carpenter and I love working with wood. I'm from Nova Scotia where the forests have been and continue to be raped in the most merciless fashion. We have a zillion miles to go with our forestry practices before we can claim that building with wood is "green". I agree with you, Lloyd. Sufficiency is the number one consideration if we're honestly trying to be green.
Unexpected perspective from Chris Magwood, I thought he did advocate accounting for sequestration but maybe I had that wrong.
So I think my takeaway from this chapter (thanks for sharing it!) is the same as we’ve concluded before: we don’t have time for LCA (& it might not be accurate), just less fking steel and concrete!
Bottom Line, even if you are able to get a clear consensus on “How good is wood?”, you still need to consider insect attack, rodent infestation, rot, and mold of the wood structure over its lifetime in comparison to other construction materials. Maybe the best trait of wood structures is that historically they are all TEMPORARY !
I have seen wood buildings from the 13th century made out of wood that are still standing proud, long after reinforced concrete buildings have disintegrated. Wood can be as permanent as any other material.
Wood buildings are not temporary if you design then not to be temporary - they can outlast brick and concrete.
A work colleague of mine lives in a 600-year-old wood and brick house. Thats not temporary, and before you say BUT THE MAINENANACE - al houses need maintenance if they are to last.
It's interesting to me that in Europe they have (had?) a desire for permanence and material quality while here in the U.S. we don't seem concerned about any of that. I'm sure Beyoncé's house has a "veneer" of opulence over her 2X4s. That is very american
Beyonce's house in Malibu is a 40,000 sf shack designed by Tadao Ando. While not a world leader in energy efficient design, he is known for having his buildings made from cast concrete. Lloyd seems to not be a fan of buildings with a lot of concrete :-)
For a fascinating look into Ando's architecture, read the recent article in the New Yorker about the much smaller Ando house in Malibu bought for $57 million by Kanye West, and how West has modified the architecture (some tongue in cheek here...)
I remember seeing a building under construction in Germany in 2000 in which the floors were solid wood panels, and thinking, why the heck would someone do that when they could use joists? Maximizing the amount of wood in a building is wrong-headed.
A team I've been on is finishing a 3 story, 30,000 sf laboratory building of glulams and CLT. The scale of the spaces means this structural approach replaces steel and concrete. This application makes sense to me.
Note that protection of the wood panels from rain during construction is important, especially if it is going to remain exposed. Using more organic materials subject to mold and decay means upgrading site protection practices. I recently consulted on a project in which straw panels got seriously wet and the straw had to be removed and replaced with another insulation. The manufacturer is considering wrapping future product in plastic membrane to avoid this occurring - this is not an environmental upgrade!
You have it exactly right Marc. There are low rise building types where light wood frame is not a good fit, and at those it may make good sense both environmentally and economically to use mass timber for structure. Your example being a fine one. Mass timber does not makes sense at low rise residential buildings, basically anything up to five or six stories. Certainly, one can do it, but they ought not to be attempting to make a case they are doing it for environmental or economic reasons.
I am guessing one thing you noticed and understood when observing those solid wood floors in Germany so many years ago, is not only the lack of joists but also the lack of cavities. Few people really understand and appreciate the true innovation that light wood frame was (and still is) as a construction technology, born as it was some 190 years ago in Chicago. And what is almost the most singularly genius element of the technology is not the wood itself, but rather those cavities that occur in the system, situated between the wood structural members. The utility of those cavities is under appreciated, but truly innovative. Those cavities did not serve much function in the 1800s when the technology was originally developed, but as buildings have evolved over time the cavities are essential to how other systems are economically (if not always seamlessly) integrated into the buildings. The “cavity” is almost an afterthought to most people…it deserves more appreciation!
I'm a carpenter and I love working with wood. I'm from Nova Scotia where the forests have been and continue to be raped in the most merciless fashion. We have a zillion miles to go with our forestry practices before we can claim that building with wood is "green". I agree with you, Lloyd. Sufficiency is the number one consideration if we're honestly trying to be green.
Unexpected perspective from Chris Magwood, I thought he did advocate accounting for sequestration but maybe I had that wrong.
So I think my takeaway from this chapter (thanks for sharing it!) is the same as we’ve concluded before: we don’t have time for LCA (& it might not be accurate), just less fking steel and concrete!
"He said I never would; every forest is different,"
I was just thinking that as I got to those words. The problem is that your question does not have a "One Size Fits All" answer.
But we are not going to stop building so the real question is "Wood/Steel or Concrete - chose"
Bottom Line, even if you are able to get a clear consensus on “How good is wood?”, you still need to consider insect attack, rodent infestation, rot, and mold of the wood structure over its lifetime in comparison to other construction materials. Maybe the best trait of wood structures is that historically they are all TEMPORARY !
I have seen wood buildings from the 13th century made out of wood that are still standing proud, long after reinforced concrete buildings have disintegrated. Wood can be as permanent as any other material.
Wood buildings are not temporary if you design then not to be temporary - they can outlast brick and concrete.
A work colleague of mine lives in a 600-year-old wood and brick house. Thats not temporary, and before you say BUT THE MAINENANACE - al houses need maintenance if they are to last.
It's interesting to me that in Europe they have (had?) a desire for permanence and material quality while here in the U.S. we don't seem concerned about any of that. I'm sure Beyoncé's house has a "veneer" of opulence over her 2X4s. That is very american
Beyonce's house in Malibu is a 40,000 sf shack designed by Tadao Ando. While not a world leader in energy efficient design, he is known for having his buildings made from cast concrete. Lloyd seems to not be a fan of buildings with a lot of concrete :-)
For a fascinating look into Ando's architecture, read the recent article in the New Yorker about the much smaller Ando house in Malibu bought for $57 million by Kanye West, and how West has modified the architecture (some tongue in cheek here...)