Well, true dat. As much as I like the idea of adding mass timber levels to an existing structure, it seems to be a cumbersome, costly endeavor. Maybe that's why developers simply look to level one building to the ground and start over, because then the entire structure is designed from the ground up to be contiguous.
I don't argue for the sake of argumentation and intending to be a thorn in your side, I argue because I have genuine questions and concerns to many of the "we must do this or else" so-called solutions being posited by many in the green arena. I genuinely admire your—like Howard Dean, the former 2004 Democrat presidential candidate—strong convictions, even though I may not agree with them, because you don't waver in your beliefs. And that's admirable in today's era of wishy-washy.
There's a severe housing crunch right now in Canada, the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand, and several other nation states. I genuinely think that something like this mass timber multi-story addition thing would be beneficial to alleviating at least a small portion of that housing deficiency, but it's going to come at a cost (as you know from being an architect) which means that infill will lead to more gentrification (to recover those costs) and higher overall market prices. With prices already too high to be affordable for many younger buyers (especially those who would like to have a family, or are starting one) the added costs simply become prohibitive. Short of imposing a cap on housing prices, how do we overcome the affordability crisis and get more people out of their parents' houses and into homes of their own?
Mass timber construction on its own is, I think, great—if for no other reason than the strength : weight ratio is so high, it's easy to work with, and uses renewable forest products to create. But I lament that so often the developers and architects who build these things, UNDER THE GUISE OF LOCAL REGULATORY CONTROL, can't or won't build at higher density. Here in Phoenix, most of the 'burbs have conditional development that bans construction higher than four stories so as "not to block the scenic views of surrounding area mountains." I kid you not. So, post-Great Recession, investors scooped up every last undeveloped lot and maximized infill with cookie cutter SFH's. Now almost no open spaces remain, just an endless sea of tract housing. And I lament the change, having lived here for 22 years, but it's also beyond anyone's control.
I often feel like the positions you ask people to voluntarily make can only be achieved if imposed through dictatorial compulsion, and we all know how much people like dictatorship.
Something I recently realized during a train trip from Virginia to New York, was how inorganic the McMansions now in vogue in Northern Virginia are compared to the more organic older generations of houses. McMansions are built to the maximum limits of the lot's usable space both in footprint and in vertical space. The only room for future renovations is to rework the interior. Older homes including my owned 1950 brick clad rambler are seen in many variations with added floors, pop outs in front, back or to the side, or more than one of these.
On the residential level, I'm all for it. This makes more sense than selling the old and building a larger footprint building.
There are many houses that can benefit from this, it also maybe a way to help with the housing shortage as, each story should have enough area for separate generational housing.
>>"Just don’t pretend that it’s easy."
Well, true dat. As much as I like the idea of adding mass timber levels to an existing structure, it seems to be a cumbersome, costly endeavor. Maybe that's why developers simply look to level one building to the ground and start over, because then the entire structure is designed from the ground up to be contiguous.
I have enjoyed your comments lately. Can I say that?
Of course you can, Lloyd.
I don't argue for the sake of argumentation and intending to be a thorn in your side, I argue because I have genuine questions and concerns to many of the "we must do this or else" so-called solutions being posited by many in the green arena. I genuinely admire your—like Howard Dean, the former 2004 Democrat presidential candidate—strong convictions, even though I may not agree with them, because you don't waver in your beliefs. And that's admirable in today's era of wishy-washy.
There's a severe housing crunch right now in Canada, the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand, and several other nation states. I genuinely think that something like this mass timber multi-story addition thing would be beneficial to alleviating at least a small portion of that housing deficiency, but it's going to come at a cost (as you know from being an architect) which means that infill will lead to more gentrification (to recover those costs) and higher overall market prices. With prices already too high to be affordable for many younger buyers (especially those who would like to have a family, or are starting one) the added costs simply become prohibitive. Short of imposing a cap on housing prices, how do we overcome the affordability crisis and get more people out of their parents' houses and into homes of their own?
Mass timber construction on its own is, I think, great—if for no other reason than the strength : weight ratio is so high, it's easy to work with, and uses renewable forest products to create. But I lament that so often the developers and architects who build these things, UNDER THE GUISE OF LOCAL REGULATORY CONTROL, can't or won't build at higher density. Here in Phoenix, most of the 'burbs have conditional development that bans construction higher than four stories so as "not to block the scenic views of surrounding area mountains." I kid you not. So, post-Great Recession, investors scooped up every last undeveloped lot and maximized infill with cookie cutter SFH's. Now almost no open spaces remain, just an endless sea of tract housing. And I lament the change, having lived here for 22 years, but it's also beyond anyone's control.
I often feel like the positions you ask people to voluntarily make can only be achieved if imposed through dictatorial compulsion, and we all know how much people like dictatorship.
Something I recently realized during a train trip from Virginia to New York, was how inorganic the McMansions now in vogue in Northern Virginia are compared to the more organic older generations of houses. McMansions are built to the maximum limits of the lot's usable space both in footprint and in vertical space. The only room for future renovations is to rework the interior. Older homes including my owned 1950 brick clad rambler are seen in many variations with added floors, pop outs in front, back or to the side, or more than one of these.
On the residential level, I'm all for it. This makes more sense than selling the old and building a larger footprint building.
There are many houses that can benefit from this, it also maybe a way to help with the housing shortage as, each story should have enough area for separate generational housing.