Gentlemen:
Cheap shots. Is that the kind of forum you guys like?
Scott admits that there is room for all kinds of buildings and builders, so it would appear he gets the point, but he then turns around and accuses me of disparaging "talented, conscientious, hard working builders." Rubbish. Nothing I have written has disparged anyone. I have been discussing building systems, not workers.
As to Scott's comments about making pianos, I counter that we are not making barns, either. His attitude is what got General Motors in trouble, and let the Japanese get their foot in the American car market to the point that they now dominate it. People want quality and reliability once they know what is possible. At the same time, I am not denying that there is the consumer that prefers cracks, gaps and knee braces, just as there are people that love wood floors with terrific gouges. These are not my target market. I leave them to you, Scott.
Even some cheap shots by Jonathan, I am dissapointed to see. I am not "looking down on traditional timber framing." Traditional frames have their niche. I have honestly described a different product, and compared the physical tolerances with a solid-wood frame. If the facts bother you, then look away, but don't stoop to slandering me for answering your questions honestly.
The snide remark about PVC extrusions was unworthy and unintelligent. If you don't know why residential framing is done using wood products, do your research or go back to signmaking, but trouble me not with nonsense.
Jonathan slanders me further by implying that my products are "characterless impersonal indentikit units." My, what a large soapbox he has. To the contrary, of the 30,000+ units I mentioned before, ALL are one-off custom designed buildings. He goes on to imply they are "wasteful of materials and energy." On what do you base that broad statement, Jonathan? Certainly not fact, and certainly not on even a basic understanding of commercial wood product manufacturing. Do your research before you attempt to act the expert, please.
I am not joking about buildings lasting 600 years. With good maintenance, most properly constructed building types will last that long. If you doubt it, then you should investigate the repairs that have been made over the centuries to 600 year old buildings. I have, and I know that they survived not just because they were built by romantic, nature loving carpenters with thews of iron, but because each generation was determined they would survive. My point was that Jonathan must be joking when he asks ANYONE how many buildings out of 30,000 will survive for 600 years. Poor flashing and leaky roofs are the initial cause of the deterioration of more wood buildings than anything else. Are traditional timber frames immune to poor roof maintenance? Are they immune to fire, flood, urban renewal, and termites? Don't ask a stupid question and then expect serious people to admire your cleverness.
Jonathan's comment about recycling and sustainability displays a lack of knowledge about both subjects. Perhaps someone with professional industry expereince will take the time to enlighten him about the numbers? I grow bored.
I am saddened that my simple attempt to use this forum to find an architect, and then to answer questions posed, has only resulted in ridicule from the uninformed. I had expected better.
Stan
