...Lumber is a very green product...as long as it remains in our forests, parks and backyards - with leaves on them - providing us with fruit, shade and O2...

After all...if one were to indroduce a new building product for load bearing exterior walls with the following characteristics a.) When it gets wet...it whorps, b.) burns very well and c.) is the main diet for termites?...would one really want to us this product as the main product in an exterior loadbearing wall???

Well said Donner.

It is not that logging is the bad thing that some people say. Trees are farmed and cut over areas with young new growth supports more wildlife. I see this first hand as we own northern MN forest.

The point is wood is for furniture and trim.

I like the idea of SIPs but the cost is no where near 2-5 % higher than stick for a 1500 sqf crawl space it was 23000 $ I dug and built a basement w/ block for less. At 125 $ a yard plus pumping concrete is exspensive. Digging, heating and transportation of it takes away from its green aspects .

Malibud,

CMUs are made of concrete, and must be transported. CMUs also have little tensile strength and no insulation. How about the extra carbon your house pumps out? And that it is weak by comparison?

I started ICF Construction before I ever hear the term "green" because it is the overall best method of construction, by far. As did this website, started as an ICF forum. So forget about the "green" that is highly subjective.

And the basis for my statements comes from 14 years full-time construction consulting, primarily consisting of assessing damage to structures after catastrophe losses. Between 8,000-10,000 during that time. Currently I have an ongoing consulting gig involving minor mold to a wood framed house that resulted in a $340,000 judgement against the seller, that acted as her own GC.

A reinforced concrete wall is stronger than a properly built wood wall. A properly built wood wall is cheaper than a reinforced concrete wall. Both can be insulated to identical levels.
Take two almost identical homes, both properly built. One house built with properly installed ICF and one house built with with a properly installed 2*6 wall, including typical corner bracing and with plywood double diaphragm. Both houses will be using an identical foundation, roof structure, and roof tie down system. In a storm, with both homes properly designed, the first point of failure is going to be the roof. This might not be the case in a piece of junk house, but for a well designed one, it will be the case. The stresses on the roof are going to well exceed the stresses on the wall systems, and will cause the failure of the roof system, which will collapse. So now you have two houses without roofs. I admit, if the wind picks up even more, the wood walls will blow away before the concrete ones, but how much money is that really worth? You are still in a storm with no roof over your head! I could design a wall system made out of foot thick solid titanium, but what good will that be if my roof blows off? Design a version of an ICF that can be adapted for roof use, and then you will be talking, but until then, using concrete in your walls will not magically make your roof stronger. It will make your walls stronger, but if they are strong enough to begin with, what does it matter?
I have seen horribly built homes that the walls might be the first thing to fail, but that doesn’t mean they need to upgrade to concrete, it means they need to learn how to use the material they have correctly.
That being said, if you wish to spend your extra money reinforcing a part of your home, don't let me discourage you. It is a much better investment than $18 per square foot wood flooring, $1000 speaker cables, or other such nonsense people like to waste their money on. If you will sleep more soundly knowing there is concrete in your walls, then by all means go for it. As for me, I will spend my extra money on the roof structure. If I ever reinforce my roof to the point my walls are the weakest link, I will worry about my walls. Until then, I will just make sure that my wood walls are properly designed, installed, and tied down and spend my savings on my roof.
I know you will never agree with me, and that doesn’t bother me, and I am not saying your product is inferior, it just seems to me to be overpriced for the benefit. Other people may disagree, which is their right and I am not trying to discourage that. It just seems to me that a lot of the argument for this is a fear tactic that your family will die if they don’t use this product, which simply is not the whole picture. You have to consider the house as a whole unit, and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Reinforcing the wall link that doesn’t fail as often to excessive levels just doesn’t make as much sense to me as reinforcing it to acceptable levels and then concentrating on the other links.

Where do these houses get built, because I have not seen them? "house built with with a properly installed 2*6 wall, including typical corner bracing and with plywood double diaphragm". Urethane foam that house and it would cost the same as and ICF house and be less energy efficient, weaker, more sound transmission and could still rot or mold.

"how much money is that really worth" ICFs are easily worth the 3-5% more than a wood framed house built to the minimum code. And for even money an ICF house is worth more than the one you describe.

The most common place a roof fails, after the shingles or roofing, is at the connection. It is not magic, the stronger the walls/connection the higher winds the roof structure will withstand. And when a roof goes and the walls stay little or the debris falls inside. Furthermore if the roof does go first, the walls a considerably weaker and will likely collapse and that is more likely when people get hurt.

"Design a version of an ICF that can be adapted for roof use, and then you will be talking" Done! Lite-Deck, Insul-Deck and AmDeck. Check out the thread "Subject: Another example concrete hip roof!"

It is not that I am focused on a fear tactic, but the strength, or lack there of, is the point you are working on. And if you want to debate one, or all, of the other ways wood structures are inferior, we can do that.

Someone commented earlier that they would be dead in 20-30 years. Way to think about the bigger picture. You want to be green, but just green for yourself. This is one of the problems in the US. We build our houses for our immediate needs. Not for long term sustainability. This is an area that Europe does a much better job than us. When they build homes, they build them to last centuries, not 20-30 years. Think outside the box.

My house is over 150 years old and half of it is built with granite. Stone... longevity, locally harvested, environmentally friendly, strong. You get the idea. Of course, that is mixed with wood, but I did not build the original house. We need to start looking at houses that will last 100 to 200 or more years. Houses that can be easily remodeled internally to meet the changing times, but stand strong on the outside. Stone is one of those materials. Can every house be built with stone. No.

So what is an alternative? ICF is one alternative. Not the only, but currently one of the best. An ICF can be built to last 100-200+ years. The interior can be easily modified from generation to generation to meet their needs. Yet the external structure stands strong. Yes they cost more to build. I get that. Stop whining. You will easily recoup that cost in your energy savings over a 5-10 year period. Easily over your 20-30 year short sighted life.

Stop talking about sustainability and green only when it's convenient to you. If you can't stop thinking about yourself, then take your hypocritical self elsewhere.


Jason

Actually if you have a mortgage on your ICF house, you immediately recoup the the extra 3-5%. Because it is spread out into a monthly expense, as your utilities are a monthly expense. And your mortgage will stay the same 3-5% more a month and in the years to come the utilities will go up, maybe a lot.

Jason, have you checked your home for radon and radioactivity? Most granite has low enough radioactivity that it is safe for useage such as countertops but if your house is half granite it would behoove you to check it out.

And why get into name calling and telling people not to participate in this thread because you might disagree with what they said? I thought we were having a nice friendly debate/discussion here. Let's keep it that way.

Compared to what?


Wow...

I would challenge that the majority of wood framed houses in your area are not built the way you describe. And I would never encourage someone to build any wood framed home anywhere. I have seen too many, thousands, with problems that would have been prevented or minimized if they were ICF.

Mold does not happen just from leakage and drainage plain issues. Although if one thing on that exterior is missed, done wrong or not maintained, it will leak and cause damage. With ICFs all the fallible wraps, drainage planes, blah blah is not needed. An equally significant cause of mold, at least in cold climates, is condensation. One cause of which is a vapor barrier on the cold side of insulation, such as "taped foam board sheathing over the outer plywood". Actually mold remediation caused by condensation is much worse because it occurs deeper in the wall.

I agree; many ignorant homeowners would sooner spend the money on a granite counter-top or hardwood floors, than on the structure of there home. But unless they pay cash for the house, an ICF house does not cost them 3-5% more a month.

There cannot be the same or comparable connection in a weak wood wall as a concrete wall. Apples and oranges.

Roofs don't collapse from windstorms, they are torn off and the majority of the debris ends up outside the house, if not a long way away.

Wood framing is not strong enough. And if you tried to make one as energy efficient and as strong as ICFs it would cost more long before you achieved it. A few percent is hardly cost prohibitive. Titanium is a ridiculous comparison, but it helps show that there currently exists no better method of construction than ICFs.

aard - yep, I sure did see some of those houses you have described (along with a few thousand other wood constructed buildings) - in fall of 2007 from Pepperdine University all the way to San Diego, California - burn totally to the ground in less than 20 minutes!!! Also saw a few ICF buildings - also in the direct path of these wild-fires - which had little or no damage...HMMMM Maybe fire has not been invented yet in your neck of the woods!

Mother nature provides encore presentations each and every year (in case you missed it) as to why wood (for exterior walls) might be too "Hot" of an idea!!!!!

Fire, windstorm, mold, energy waste, air infiltration, noise, deterioration, fallibility during construction all mitigated with ICFs. Check out this photo http://apachecreekbuilders.com/katrina.htm

There is a reason why the rest of the world builds with concrete and masonry, it's better.

$15 -$20 thousand is hardly cost prohibitive on a $400,000 house. They should just build a $385,000 house.

There are many threads on this site alone that would suggest that ICF construction
does not automatically eliminate water leaks, condensation and mold.

http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/view/topic/forumid/4/postid/45994/Default.aspx

 

http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/view/topic/forumid/4/postid/37657/Default.aspx

 

http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/view/topic/forumid/4/postid/28030/Default.aspx

 

http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/view/topic/forumid/4/postid/27734/Default.aspx

 

http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/view/topic/forumid/4/postid/25983/Default.aspx

 

http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/view/topic/forumid/4/postid/24841/Default.aspx

 

http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/view/topic/forumid/4/postid/1343/Default.aspx

 

http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/view/topic/forumid/4/postid/1182/Default.aspx

 

http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/view/topic/forumid/4/postid/951/Default.aspx

 

http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/view/topic/forumid/4/postid/443/Default.aspx

Obviously the key to any construction method is doing it properly. Regardless of whether it is wood or concrete you can do it right with no isssues or do it wrong and have problems.

I did not suggest ICFs solved all water leaks or problems, just most. However the use of them is less fallible. For instance you of course still need water proofing below grade.

Of the 10 examples Greg gave:

4 are problems with below grade water-proofing. (Wood foundations are horrible)
2 are roof leaks and have nothing to do with ICFs, other than that is what the walls are.
2 were under construction. (look what happens to wood components exposed to the weather during construction)
1 was a composite ICF, post and beam. That I will read further.

The remaining 1 involved openings that appear not to have been sealed, peel and stick should be used around windows and doors. (A similar leak in a wood framed would undoubtedly would result in much more severe damage)

This is my first post on this site, I just had to get a word in on this conversation.

It was said that $20,000 extra on a house would be cost prohibitive, and yes to a "normal" family it would be.

But the $20,000 reference came from building a $400,000 dollar house versus a $420,000 - and I'm sorry if somebody is of the financial ability to build a $400,000 house, then an extra $20,000 ISN'T going to break the piggy bank.

First of all, spread out over the typical 25 year mortgage, that $20,000 extra cost equates to roughly $70 dollars a month.  I'm sorry, but if $70 a month is keeping you from building a $420,000 house, maybe you should be thinking a little smaller anyway.

And of all the new homes that are being constructed these days, how many of them are being built "properly"?  HAHAHA If you think that 2x4's and aspenite (chip board) are proper then do I have a deal for you on some magic beans.

Interesting, I didn't see any name calling in my post.  What I did was call someone out for being short sighted.  I finish the post by saying people love to talk about being green or sustainability.  As soon as it's not convenient, many give up and take the easy route. 


I am not saying we need to totally abandon stick frame construction.  What I am saying is that we cannot think about houses that are only going to last 20-30 years.  Or even 50-60 years.  The current methodologies used in stick-frame construction do not support longevity.  I do realize there is no one answer.  I do believe that ICF done right is a construction technique that can be long term/sustainable.  One of the problems with ICF right now is that there are not enough builders that are properly trained at this time.    


I also agree with you about checking for radon with granite.  Radioactivity is a new one I had not heard. 



Jason

You are right, the wood framed houses they are building are disposable houses. I also agree with your statement,"I am not saying we need to totally abandon stick frame construction" stick framing is suitable for interior walls.