6 ms·

It saddens me that construction quality is almost irrelevant when building a new building nowadays. The profit difference between a well-isolated passive buildi

It saddens me that construction quality is almost irrelevant when building a new building nowadays. The profit difference between a well-isolated passive building and one that merely meets the minimal standards, is often very small, so why bother building a passive building? My personal interest in passive buildings generally revolve around maintenance. Passive houses seem to require far less maintenance.

sb057 5y ago
>The profit difference between a well-isolated passive building and one that merely meets the minimal standards, is often very small, so why bother building a passive building? People making decisions about which contractor to use (both for public and private projects) are often mandated to choose the absolute cheapest bidder, sometimes with the ability of choosing a different one if they file mountains of paperwork explaining why.
- pjerem 5y ago
  That's what norms are for. If minimal thermal requirements are written in the law, even the cheapest builder must build a highly insulated home. In my country, it's mandatory to have well insulated home, to prove (with tests) that you respect the norms, and it's also mandatory to have renewable heat source (mainly heat pumps). Sure, it costs a little more, but with the rise of real estate prices, it's still way cheaper to build well insulated houses. The building cost since those new norms increased about maybe dozens of thousands euros. It's not even a lot given the exceptional thermal comfort you get from your money.
dx034 5y ago
I doubt the maintenance part. I lived in one and experienced more maintenance. You have the heat exchanger as an additional moving part which needs cleaning, new filters, etc. Also, you need a perfect seal between inside and outside. So any cables going outside (blinds, air conditioning which you'll still want if it's 40C outside, etc) needs to be sealed and is thus much harder to replace or repair.
LunaSea 5y ago
> Passive houses seem to require far less maintenance. Interesting! Could you explain a bit more on how you came to this conclusion?
- Mromson 5y ago
  In general, this conclusion comes from the notion that a passive house has fewer moving parts and requires less attention. A poorly insulated house demands that you take more active measures to ensure that it keeps a positive temperature (so water pipes don't freeze), this is extra pertinent should the power go out. A well-insulated house is also likely to have fewer points of failure (water getting into cracks and whatnot). A proper passive house generally only has one maintenance point, which is the ventilation / air filtration system, and temperature control is easy. You don't have to worry much about the insides being too hot or too cold, as it should keep whatever temperature you set regardless of the weather outside. With all that said, you should generally take everything I said with a grain of doubt, as I'm not an expert, and someone could well shoot down all my points in the comments. ;-) My prime goal with any house I buy is to make sure that I have to do as little as possible; never worry about water being in the wrong place, and never worry about the power bill, or temperature in general.
  - LunaSea 5y ago
    Ah I see, that makes sense. I've always found Passive Haus design interesting although the (expensive) single point of failure that lies in the air pumps scares me a bit.
    - poseva 5y ago
      First of all, if you build a PassivHaus in normal climate (not cold) you will be amazed to see that you do not need a heat pump, you can just use normal electric boiler for hot water and use electric underfloor heating mats for heating, or infrared panels mounted on the roof. On the other side, air-to-air heat pumps have gotten cheaper by the year, you can buy a decent heat pump (NIBE) with about 4500-5000 euros.
lostlogin 5y ago
The houses in the article have a lot of wood and decking. New Zealand is savage on exposed timber. I have tried multiple products from expensive to cheap and have the same result on all. A deck which gets rain and faces north west needs re-coating every 6 months to 1 year. The combination of heat, UV and water is just savage.
- goldcd 5y ago
  Have you looked at modified woods like Accoya? (50 year guarantee above ground, 25 in water)
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    Thanks - I hadn’t. I haven’t had any degrade to the stage where it needs replacement, I just have to keep maintaining. I’ll look into it further, the product looks impressive.
    - goldcd 5y ago
      It's good stuff - but not cheap. For decking where you're going to have to clean it yearly anyway, I wouldn't bother (no real effort to just add on some maintenance) - and probably works out cheaper even with a few replacements over decades. Where it shines is where it's a pain to replace and a nice bit of weathering is what you're after (say the eaves on a roof) - not too expensive to run a plank around the perimeter and no ladders/scaffolding/treatment required for the rest of your life.
    - Mandatum 5y ago
      The reason the stuff lasts so long is it's chemically gone from cellulose/wood fiber to acetate. There's a lot of issues with using it aside from expense; anything touching it will be impacted by the acidity of the wood, so you'll want to use things like stainless steel. It's a great wood, but it's not all roses. The other thing to keep in mind, the process behind it doesn't HAVE to be applied to New Zealand or Chilean radiata pine, they only use that wood as it's more marketable and people are more likely to stomach the costs. Something to also keep in mind the wood is only treated on the outside. If you cut into it, for example the endgrain on every plank you buy - it'll need to be sealed just as regular radiata pina. When "perennial wood" was originally sold decades ago, people installed it expecting zero maintenance and then found their decking started to rot less than a decade later. Keeping that in mind, similar issues can arise if you sand the wood.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
> It saddens me that construction quality is almost irrelevant when building a new building nowadays. Depends on where you live; houses in the Netherlands are built to high standards when it comes to things like insulation, build quality, electrification, etc. Are houses in the US still built with 2x4's and drywall? You'd think they would move to what we have here in the Netherlands, mostly sturdy concrete blocks, insulation layer, and a pretty brickwork or brickwork-looking facade. I mean the amount of clips I see on the youtubes of people breaking walls make me cringe. A wall should break you, not the other way around, :D
- Mromson 5y ago
  Some countries have comparatively high building standards, but none (that I'm aware of) come close to a Passive House standard. My gripe isn't as much what the minimum requirement is, and more the incentive to never go above it, because property prices are generally only going up with little regard to building standards.
- vinay427 5y ago
  > Are houses in the US still built with 2x4's and drywall? You'd think they would move to what we have here in the Netherlands, mostly sturdy concrete blocks Do you mind explaining why you feel this way? There are definitely benefits to reinforced concrete such as durability and resistance to certain natural elements, but as far as I can tell modern fire-treated wood construction tends to be nearly as safe in fires or superior in earthquakes, has better insulation, and is more ecological during the construction process. Overall, I would prefer reinforced concrete, but it’s more for the “qualitative advantages” as it feels more reassuring to the touch. Speaking of electrification, one complaint I have of most construction in at least continental Europe is the consistent dearth of electrical outlets in residential settings. Living in Switzerland for years and visiting other countries, it seemed like an extension cord across the bedroom or living room was nearly always needed due to awkward and very limited outlet placement. The fire code in a state like California seems to have much stricter mandates to prevent this sort of thing.
  - pierot 5y ago

sb057 5y ago

>The profit difference between a well-isolated passive building and one that merely meets the minimal standards, is often very small, so why bother building a passive building? People making decisions about which contractor to use (both for public and private projects) are often mandated to choose the absolute cheapest bidder, sometimes with the ability of choosing a different one if they file mountains of paperwork explaining why.

pjerem 5y ago
That's what norms are for. If minimal thermal requirements are written in the law, even the cheapest builder must build a highly insulated home. In my country, it's mandatory to have well insulated home, to prove (with tests) that you respect the norms, and it's also mandatory to have renewable heat source (mainly heat pumps). Sure, it costs a little more, but with the rise of real estate prices, it's still way cheaper to build well insulated houses. The building cost since those new norms increased about maybe dozens of thousands euros. It's not even a lot given the exceptional thermal comfort you get from your money.

dx034 5y ago

I doubt the maintenance part. I lived in one and experienced more maintenance. You have the heat exchanger as an additional moving part which needs cleaning, new filters, etc. Also, you need a perfect seal between inside and outside. So any cables going outside (blinds, air conditioning which you'll still want if it's 40C outside, etc) needs to be sealed and is thus much harder to replace or repair.

LunaSea 5y ago

> Passive houses seem to require far less maintenance. Interesting! Could you explain a bit more on how you came to this conclusion?

Mromson 5y ago
In general, this conclusion comes from the notion that a passive house has fewer moving parts and requires less attention. A poorly insulated house demands that you take more active measures to ensure that it keeps a positive temperature (so water pipes don't freeze), this is extra pertinent should the power go out. A well-insulated house is also likely to have fewer points of failure (water getting into cracks and whatnot). A proper passive house generally only has one maintenance point, which is the ventilation / air filtration system, and temperature control is easy. You don't have to worry much about the insides being too hot or too cold, as it should keep whatever temperature you set regardless of the weather outside. With all that said, you should generally take everything I said with a grain of doubt, as I'm not an expert, and someone could well shoot down all my points in the comments. ;-) My prime goal with any house I buy is to make sure that I have to do as little as possible; never worry about water being in the wrong place, and never worry about the power bill, or temperature in general.
- LunaSea 5y ago
  Ah I see, that makes sense. I've always found Passive Haus design interesting although the (expensive) single point of failure that lies in the air pumps scares me a bit.
  - poseva 5y ago
    First of all, if you build a PassivHaus in normal climate (not cold) you will be amazed to see that you do not need a heat pump, you can just use normal electric boiler for hot water and use electric underfloor heating mats for heating, or infrared panels mounted on the roof. On the other side, air-to-air heat pumps have gotten cheaper by the year, you can buy a decent heat pump (NIBE) with about 4500-5000 euros.

lostlogin 5y ago

The houses in the article have a lot of wood and decking. New Zealand is savage on exposed timber. I have tried multiple products from expensive to cheap and have the same result on all. A deck which gets rain and faces north west needs re-coating every 6 months to 1 year. The combination of heat, UV and water is just savage.

goldcd 5y ago
Have you looked at modified woods like Accoya? (50 year guarantee above ground, 25 in water)
- lostlogin 5y ago
  Thanks - I hadn’t. I haven’t had any degrade to the stage where it needs replacement, I just have to keep maintaining. I’ll look into it further, the product looks impressive.
  - goldcd 5y ago
    It's good stuff - but not cheap. For decking where you're going to have to clean it yearly anyway, I wouldn't bother (no real effort to just add on some maintenance) - and probably works out cheaper even with a few replacements over decades. Where it shines is where it's a pain to replace and a nice bit of weathering is what you're after (say the eaves on a roof) - not too expensive to run a plank around the perimeter and no ladders/scaffolding/treatment required for the rest of your life.
  - Mandatum 5y ago
    The reason the stuff lasts so long is it's chemically gone from cellulose/wood fiber to acetate. There's a lot of issues with using it aside from expense; anything touching it will be impacted by the acidity of the wood, so you'll want to use things like stainless steel. It's a great wood, but it's not all roses. The other thing to keep in mind, the process behind it doesn't HAVE to be applied to New Zealand or Chilean radiata pine, they only use that wood as it's more marketable and people are more likely to stomach the costs. Something to also keep in mind the wood is only treated on the outside. If you cut into it, for example the endgrain on every plank you buy - it'll need to be sealed just as regular radiata pina. When "perennial wood" was originally sold decades ago, people installed it expecting zero maintenance and then found their decking started to rot less than a decade later. Keeping that in mind, similar issues can arise if you sand the wood.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

> It saddens me that construction quality is almost irrelevant when building a new building nowadays. Depends on where you live; houses in the Netherlands are built to high standards when it comes to things like insulation, build quality, electrification, etc. Are houses in the US still built with 2x4's and drywall? You'd think they would move to what we have here in the Netherlands, mostly sturdy concrete blocks, insulation layer, and a pretty brickwork or brickwork-looking facade. I mean the amount of clips I see on the youtubes of people breaking walls make me cringe. A wall should break you, not the other way around, :D

Mromson 5y ago
Some countries have comparatively high building standards, but none (that I'm aware of) come close to a Passive House standard. My gripe isn't as much what the minimum requirement is, and more the incentive to never go above it, because property prices are generally only going up with little regard to building standards.
vinay427 5y ago
> Are houses in the US still built with 2x4's and drywall? You'd think they would move to what we have here in the Netherlands, mostly sturdy concrete blocks Do you mind explaining why you feel this way? There are definitely benefits to reinforced concrete such as durability and resistance to certain natural elements, but as far as I can tell modern fire-treated wood construction tends to be nearly as safe in fires or superior in earthquakes, has better insulation, and is more ecological during the construction process. Overall, I would prefer reinforced concrete, but it’s more for the “qualitative advantages” as it feels more reassuring to the touch. Speaking of electrification, one complaint I have of most construction in at least continental Europe is the consistent dearth of electrical outlets in residential settings. Living in Switzerland for years and visiting other countries, it seemed like an extension cord across the bedroom or living room was nearly always needed due to awkward and very limited outlet placement. The fire code in a state like California seems to have much stricter mandates to prevent this sort of thing.
- pierot 5y ago