Touché - round one to you. I understood (and agree with) your argument, just thought that the comparison you used was slightly biased towards airtightness.

I think the problem does not arise with the cavity, but the build quality and detailing. Two well constructed and completely jointed skins of masonry must be more airtight than one surely?

Also lots of stone walls have huge voids which allow the wind to howl through them. Again all about detailing [or the lack of it at that time] Of course a lot of the ventilation [which we now call air leakage] was designed into the fabric in those days.

Yes, agree

a) trussed roofs are difficult to upgrade to habitable and waste far more material than saved during initial construction, b) shortsighted, c) naffish,
d) in general build in thermal bridges at eves, e) use treated timber, f) make loft difficult to make use of, g) waste roof space, and so on

Posted By: tonya) trussed roofs are difficult to upgrade to habitable and waste far more material than saved during initial construction, b) shortsighted, c) naffish,
d) in general build in thermal bridges at eves, e) use treated timber, f) make loft difficult to make use of, g) waste roof space, and so on

(a) No. We already had a habitable space designed into the roof space from the beginning. Much faster construction = lower cost. Not sure where the idea of waste material comes from - we had none as the trusses were built to size from the start.

(b) No - longsighted when design right first time

(c) Not sure what's naff about them

(d) No more than the studs in a timber framed wall

(e) Over here, they definitely do not use treated timber - why would they need it any more than the walls do? (Which they don't)

(f) Maybe - but we still have loft access, except, thanks to the room-in-the-trusses, it's not a usable space anyway thanks to the insulation

(g) Depends on the design - better to store stuff in a basement rather than a loft anyway as the temperature and humidity levels are far more stable

Paul in Montreal.

Having lived in Germany and the UK, one of the problems we have is the perceived need for every family to have a house.

Consider low income family houses in the UK: 80m2 spread over two floors (excluding the stairs), three tiny bedrooms, with a front garden occupied by a car and a back garden big enough for a barbecue set. High walls to provide privacy and ensure minimal contact with neighbours.

Consider low income family livings in Germany: 6 apartments spread over three floors. Each 100m2 over one floor (no wasteful stairs). The ground floor or basement provides storage areas and in modern or city dwellings, car parking is underground. A large shared garden where children play together.

Results in Germany: Higher density housing (=less need for cars), better environment for children, more space, less heating requirement, higher sociability.

Alex

If it appeared to be a good idea (or good compromise) at the time, and only in hindsight shown not to be the best decision can it truly be considered a mistake?

Are we voting on whether the decision made that that time was a big mistake, or whether it turned to have been a big mistake?

Posted By: tonyhaven't you voted yet

To be honest, I can't remember. But either way I can't say I feel qualified to make a informed choice. Listening to you lot discuss topics like this is both interesting and informative. I've lots to learn, I think.