Self build home. Advice needed.

[Dr S]

Thankyou. Lots of sage advice here guys. I need some time to mull things over.

One thing that i will say at this point, is that I have different ideas on what constitutes an envioromentally sound building. OK, so we could use current eco thinking to build this house. But are these materials sound in the long term? Is it ecologically sound to have to tare the house down and rebuild in 25 years?
I think that if i build something to last 500 years it is better for tye envioroment in the long run. Just like my recycled seven litre Jensen is better for the planet than a fleet of Toyota Prius'- its major envioromental damage took place when it was built 41 years ago, keeping it in use for as long as possible is much sounder than buying a car with low emissions.
Surely re-using materials that have already been made will be a better policy? Re-claimed bricks, stone, timber and roof tiles for example?

My plan is for something modest that suits its position within a farm yard built in the 1920s- rendered stables, weather boarded barns surrounded by mature oak, maple and ash trees. I'd like to take elements of all these buildings so the new house, once mellowed, looks like it has been there since that time. I also appreciate real craftsmanship, and an oak frame really appeals.

So again, thanks for your advice, much to digest, just don't expect a house made out of compressed hemp, old pubes and recycled Levellers albumn covers.

 

[Supratada]

Yes, using recycled bricks and tiles is very environmentally sound, as they just need a bit of mortar tapping off, and thus require no more energy than the transport to your site. No firing or kiln-work, if you "believe" in the whole carbon thing.
Sheeps wool or straw bales for insulation is also good, and cheap. Although using straw bales can result in thick walls, and you don't want to hide a lovely oak frame. They do last a long time though, as they are fully enclosed, so an "eco" building doesn't have to be a transient one. Its all about thermal mass really, which is why those thin walled 30s and 60s modernist buildings were so cold in winter and hot in summer.

As I said, and it may well be shameless plugging, if you need an architect, I'd be happy to quote.

Relatedly, a neighbour once had a lairy Celica and he chopped it in for a Prius. "Oh no, he's gone eco" I said, but earlier this year, he's now bought another Prius to replace the first one. I wonder if he even understands the concept of manufacturing impact and materials, or just thinks that buying two Prius' makes him twice as eco-friendly.

 

[rosstheboss]

Using recycled materials such as tiles is great idea, but bear in mind architectural salvage places can be bloody expensive, if it's a farm like you say perhaps there are other outbuildings to scavenge from? Just a thought...

Some of the new green building materials are fairly unproven technologies in the long term, compared to traditional techniques like bricks and mortar that have been around for years. That said there has been a recent resurgence in things like straw bale houses, of which I've thoroughly enjoyed working on a few in the past few years. Unfortunately money ends up governing most building projects, and you end up with the standard studwall/plasterboard/rendered polystyrene finish, which is a shame as, like you say, I can't see them lasting.

Personally my favourite type of building is cob, which is as old as the hills, has an indefinite lifespan and hits every target you could imagine for thermal/sound insulation. It doesn't tend to be used much now, but is still perfectly viable.

http://www.sustainablebuild.co.uk/cobbuilding.html

Quite a good website for a number of other things too as it goes...

 

[highlandsflyer]

Thankyou. Lots of sage advice here guys. I need some time to mull things over.

One thing that i will say at this point, is that I have different ideas on what constitutes an envioromentally sound building. OK, so we could use current eco thinking to build this house. But are these materials sound in the long term? Is it ecologically sound to have to tare the house down and rebuild in 25 years?
I think that if i build something to last 500 years it is better for tye envioroment in the long run. Just like my recycled seven litre Jensen is better for the planet than a fleet of Toyota Prius'- its major envioromental damage took place when it was built 41 years ago, keeping it in use for as long as possible is much sounder than buying a car with low emissions.
Surely re-using materials that have already been made will be a better policy? Re-claimed bricks, stone, timber and roof tiles for example?

My plan is for something modest that suits its position within a farm yard built in the 1920s- rendered stables, weather boarded barns surrounded by mature oak, maple and ash trees. I'd like to take elements of all these buildings so the new house, once mellowed, looks like it has been there since that time. I also appreciate real craftsmanship, and an oak frame really appeals.

So again, thanks for your advice, much to digest, just don't expect a house made out of compressed hemp, old pubes and recycled Levellers albumn covers.

In so many ways I love this post.

A friend of mine in the SWP came over to my Merc estate and made a joke about scratching it, without realising it was mine. I ripped him a new one, pointing out it was twenty years old and thus was saving the planet he was tossing on the fire with his 60mpg shoebox on wheels that had a five year fixed lifespan.

I love the Oak framed buildings you are considering Dr. S.

They are beautiful, and will still look beautiful a hundred years hence.

It is refreshing in this transitory world to have people investing in long term buildings.