Duke wrote: I lived in a stick-built frame house that had parts constructed in 1770, 1830, and 1926. *Who* doesn't build for the long term?
Amsterdam has over 3,000 buildings that are over 500 years old. Very few of ours make it past the 50 year mark, much less the 100 year mark.
Oh man! This ought to wreak havoc in the plumbing department... do you have any idea how many different sized 1/2 pipe there is?
dculberson wrote:Duke wrote: I lived in a stick-built frame house that had parts constructed in 1770, 1830, and 1926. *Who* doesn't build for the long term?Amsterdam has over 3,000 buildings that are over 500 years old. Very few of ours make it past the 50 year mark, much less the 100 year mark.
500-year-old American buildings were built out of birch saplings and deer hide...
Locally our grocery stores stopped carrying bulk ground beef.
They switched to ONLY 1lb packages. Why? I E36 M3 you not, they put a sign up saying "Due to confusion caused to our customers in offering a non-standardized selection of ground beef quantities, we now offer 1lb packages only."
Because Suzy Q American is too berkeleying stupid to understand what a decimal means or what ounces are.
I raged so berkeleying hard that day grocery shopping.
Here's the friendly-er follow up sign.
Keith Tanner wrote: So, I was repairing my deck last year and had to replace a couple of stringers. I picked up some 2x6s and dropped them in. Damn things weren't the same size as the ones installed in (best estimate) 1976. At this point, everyone assumes they were smaller and that things aren't as good as they used to be and blah blah blah. Nope, they were bigger. Damn global warming increasing tree growth rates.
Perhaps it was...
...shrinkage!
Duke wrote:dculberson wrote:500-year-old American buildings were built out of birch saplings and deer hide...Duke wrote: I lived in a stick-built frame house that had parts constructed in 1770, 1830, and 1926. *Who* doesn't build for the long term?Amsterdam has over 3,000 buildings that are over 500 years old. Very few of ours make it past the 50 year mark, much less the 100 year mark.
Not all of them. This bad boy is about 1400 years old and it's holding up pretty well.
Hungary Bill wrote: ....They think it's the funniest thing in the world that we use such flimsy materials for something as important as a house. I think the argument is actually in our favor as we win in the "ease or repairs" department.
I believe one of the main reasons stick built houses are so common in the US is the (historically) HUGE supply of wood we have.
Stone houses are cool and everything... NO way I want to live in one... where I live...
...stick housed do have other advantages.
dculberson wrote:Duke wrote: I lived in a stick-built frame house that had parts constructed in 1770, 1830, and 1926. *Who* doesn't build for the long term?Amsterdam has over 3,000 buildings that are over 500 years old. Very few of ours make it past the 50 year mark, much less the 100 year mark.
I think it would be more accurate to say very few houses built in the last 50 years have made it to the 50 year mark.
However, most houses built 100 years ago were perfectly capable of lasting 100 (200) years.
I think there’s more to the American tendency to use wood than just its availability. I think American’s anticipate a greater rate of change than most other people in the world do.
Why bother building something that’ll last hundreds of years when in just a few, you may be chasing some totally new opportunity. Simi conductors - let’s all move to Silicon Valley, Helium 3 - let’s all move to the moon.
Beyond technology, there’s social change. Now that gay marriage is legal, I don’t want a family sized house, I just want a little bungalow to share with my partner. Now that weed is legal, I don’t want to garden, I just want to watch South Park and giggle.
Keith Tanner wrote: So, I was repairing my deck last year and had to replace a couple of stringers. I picked up some 2x6s and dropped them in. Damn things weren't the same size as the ones installed in (best estimate) 1976. At this point, everyone assumes they were smaller and that things aren't as good as they used to be and blah blah blah. Nope, they were bigger. Damn global warming increasing tree growth rates.
Your newer pieces were not bigger. They were wetter.
Softwood lumber shrinkage is about 4% radially (across growth rings), and about 8% tan-gentially (parallel to growth rings).
Your lumber appears to be flat-sawn. That would be 8%- about 3/8" inch on a 2x6.
There is no shrinkage in lumber until the moisture content is below about 30%.
Framing lumber is typically considered "dry" at between 15 and 19% MC. Trim is more like 12-15%. Furniture grade material is best at about 8-10%.
If you put a moisture meter on that wood, I would bet the old pieces are about 12-15% MC, and the new ones are more like 22- 25%.
Longitudinal shrinkage (parallel-to-grain) for vertical framing members is negligible.
Therefore, a stud wall has zero shrinkage in height. A wood floor made of 2x12's can have up to 3/4" (which can pop the siding loose on the outside). An 8' tall log wall can have over 4" of shrinkage from the time it is installed until fully dry. It wreaks havoc on doors, windows, and cabinets (which have to be installed with fasteners attached in slots to allow for building shrinkage).
BTW, those are joists, not stringers. 
What's the judge going to do with the fact that wood varies in dimension according to it's moisture content??
All construction methods are related to locally available resources.
North America had vast forest resources. Wood buildings.
Some places in the world build with stone, pressed soil bricks, adobe, thatch, waddle and dab, ice blocks, sea shells, straw bales, sod, etc. etc. All because of locally available resources.
My first house in the Poconos... was built in 1899, had a 3 foot thick stone and cement foundation. All the lumber inside was actual dimensions... meaning a 2x4 actually measured 2x4, 2x6 actually measured 2x6.
SVreX wrote: Your newer pieces were not bigger. They were wetter..... ...Framing lumber is typically considered "dry" at between 15 and 19% MC. Trim is more like 12-15%. Furniture grade material is best at about 8-10%....
Woh!
This man knows his wood!
Stone houses are fine as long as the earth don't quake.
Personally I prefer our method as I think it's a lot easier to repair and have looking professional again. Lots of mold issues etc with the stone houses out there, and I've found that when you do have a problem stone houses are a lot harder to repair "correctly" than their stick counterparts.
Could be that my opinion is biased in the direction of my familiarity of the materials though...
My friend Tibor always used to counter my arguments with "I can break your walls with my fist."
Meh.
aircooled wrote:SVreX wrote: Your newer pieces were not bigger. They were wetter..... ...Framing lumber is typically considered "dry" at between 15 and 19% MC. Trim is more like 12-15%. Furniture grade material is best at about 8-10%....Woh! This man knows his wood!
No, they were bigger. That's the effect. The cause may be have been that they were wetter. But there's no way I could have put that deck back together as-is. Regardless of the cause, they were not the same size as the ones they replaced at the time I replaced them.
Now they've all been replaced, so they're of equal size and moisture content. Which was pretty significant at the time.
And people ask me why I hate working with wood. Damn stuff moves.
I hope the new labels look something like:
"40mmx88mm (common name 2x4) lumber." You know, since we are supposed to be on the metric system and all.
I would be tempted to provide actual dimensions in decimal fractions of a rod or hand though, or scientific notation angstroms or wavelengths of a certain color of light
I wonder if I can sue my TV manufacturer. It's a "32-inch" tv, but it does NOT measure 32-inches in every direction... 
Duke wrote: I lived in a stick-built frame house that had parts constructed in 1770, 1830, and 1926. *Who* doesn't build for the long term?
and "Who" DOES build for the long term:
SVreX wrote:dculberson wrote:I think it would be more accurate to say very few houses built in the last 50 years have made it to the 50 year mark. However, most houses built 100 years ago were perfectly capable of lasting 100 (200) years.Duke wrote: I lived in a stick-built frame house that had parts constructed in 1770, 1830, and 1926. *Who* doesn't build for the long term?Amsterdam has over 3,000 buildings that are over 500 years old. Very few of ours make it past the 50 year mark, much less the 100 year mark.
I disagree. The 100 year old buildings that are still around were well built. The good ones will always last longer. But they built a ton of shacks back then just like they do now and they are all long gone.
I am working on a house right now for a native family and it is 25 years old. It is a tear down. E36 M3ty contractors with no oversight did a E36 M3ty job and cost that family their home.
My current house has a build date of 1922.
I plan on having one helluva party for its centennial. You are all invited 
novaderrik wrote:Curmudgeon wrote: The really funny part? The Forest Service and the Feds set the standards they are bitching about. Go to page 23: http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdfi wonder if the judge in the case was ever shown that?
Yup, I bleieve the standards are quoted in the judgement.
So in effect what the documents says is that the people who live in California as a special caliber of stupid and need to be treated as such.
Are we collectively positive that it was Colorado and not California where dope was made legal? This, along with subsidized dope for anyone living in Berkley who does not make 32k/annum just makes me wonder.
The DA of Marin County had a bug up his butt for this for some reason. Getting a bit bored in Marin (a generally very affluent area)? Trying to make a name for himself?
The further absurdity of this the Marin County area is wealthy enough that it's likely that very few people there do their own construction. Perhaps this is a prime reason why no one there seems to realize how silly this is.
A bit sad the Lowes get's nailed for this when every lumber yard and any place that sells wood are in "violation" also. Still not sure how they get a fine out of this wither. It's CLEARLY a common practice and it doesn't seem like they have been warned about the practice. Seems a bit like prosecuting someone for a past crime, that wasn't a crime at the time.
Keith Tanner wrote:aircooled wrote:No, they were bigger. That's the effect. The cause may be have been that they were wetter. But there's no way I could have put that deck back together as-is. Regardless of the cause, they were not the same size as the ones they replaced at the time I replaced them. Now they've all been replaced, so they're of equal size and moisture content. Which was pretty significant at the time. And people ask me why I hate working with wood. Damn stuff moves.SVreX wrote: Your newer pieces were not bigger. They were wetter..... ...Framing lumber is typically considered "dry" at between 15 and 19% MC. Trim is more like 12-15%. Furniture grade material is best at about 8-10%....Woh! This man knows his wood!
Easy, Keith.
I understand the effect.
My point was that you were implying that they could have been cut differently. They were not.
They were swollen because of the difference in moisture content.
If you take 2 identical dry sponges and wet one, they are still identical, but 1 is bigger. Because it is wetter.
bearmtnmartin wrote:SVreX wrote:I disagree. The 100 year old buildings that are still around were well built. The good ones will always last longer. But they built a ton of shacks back then just like they do now and they are all long gone. I am working on a house right now for a native family and it is 25 years old. It is a tear down. E36 M3ty contractors with no oversight did a E36 M3ty job and cost that family their home.dculberson wrote:I think it would be more accurate to say very few houses built in the last 50 years have made it to the 50 year mark. However, most houses built 100 years ago were perfectly capable of lasting 100 (200) years.Duke wrote: I lived in a stick-built frame house that had parts constructed in 1770, 1830, and 1926. *Who* doesn't build for the long term?Amsterdam has over 3,000 buildings that are over 500 years old. Very few of ours make it past the 50 year mark, much less the 100 year mark.
Of course E36 M3ty construction has always been around.
But modern houses can not compete with older ones for longevity, regardless of the contractor or materials used.
Older wood frame houses are constructed of old growth timber. It is more naturally resistant to rot and infestation. Some of the species are even extinct.
Lime based cements are also superior to Portland based ones, so the concrete products, mortars, and foundations are also longer lasting.
I didn't mean to be suggesting all older houses were well built. But new ones are at big disadvantage, because many of the materials are inferior.
There are also products which exceed older ones, like engineered components. But this is a conversation about wood, not engineered products.
A 2x4 today is not equal to a 2x4 from 100 years ago.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to Ditchdigger: Should I sue the liquor store for giving me .198129 gallons of whisky when I ask for a even fifth? The ice cream companies for a 1.5 qt "half gallon" ice cream tubs?
Double stuf oreos are only 1.86 stuffed :(
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/us/oreo-high-school-experiment/
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Oh man! This ought to wreak havoc in the plumbing department... do you have any idea how many different sized 1/2 pipe there is?
I hate hate hate hate pipe sizing. "Standard" 1/2" pipe is .622 ID and .840 OD. WTF. The worst part is that the closer of the 2 numbers (ID) is the one that changes with wall thickness.
Very disappointed in Johnsons Baby Oil..
You'll need to log in to post.
