In terms of longevity, is PT lumber considered better than redwood? I’m working on a large deck and storage room, and the voting is split down the middle among the other people on the job. This is mostly for wood being set on concrete piers. Anyway, the debate has been raging for a couple of days and I was just wondering if there was any consensus in the industry.
One of the most challenging things for me, a rookie a few years into my construction career with designs on becoming a quality builder, is the variety of opinions you get on construction techniques and materials from experienced tradespeople. I guess there are just many paths up the mountain, and it takes a long time to combine the knowledge of others with your own experience in the field to learn how to build well.
Thanks again to everyone on this site- I’ve learned so much here
Steve
Replies
In my opinion, Red Wood is to soft. And since ProDeck uses PT lumber, well enough said.
See 34779.1
You get out of life what you put into it......minus taxes.
Marv
Well I live in the heart of redwood country (Humboldt Co. California). I am continually amazed at how well all these old redwood homes have stood the test of time. Including mine. The 50+ yearold posts under my house look like new and this is in an area that rarely dries out. But then again the redwood is old growth.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Thanks for the replies. It appears we're deadlocked though. Hope others weigh in when they have a chance.
Much appreciated,
Steve
The guys in Redwod country cull their wood, then send out the rest. Ever see the Redwood decks the are pictured by the Redwood Association -- not one bit of white wood pictured. All the Redwood is sorted so that clear heart redwood stays in Northern California. The rest of the nation gets wood that has white parts that trmites will eat.
It depends. If you're talking about clear, old-growth, all-heart redwood, it's pretty rot-resistant. And PT that's only treated to 0.2 psf isn't very. Plus, some stuff called "treated" is really just soaked in preservative and has only minal protection.
But if you're talking about PT @ 0.4 psf, it's essentially rot-free. And the average redwood you get these days isn't any good for ground contact except in arid or semi-arid climates. Even then, I had a redwood fence post in So. Cal. rot through at ground level just because it was near a sprinkler head. This never would have happened with 0.4 psf PT.
Around here (W. Oregon), PT is typically used for ground-contact and framing, and better-looking cedar (usually) or redwood is used for the decking itself.
I have a 14 year old sunroom made of redwood. The redwood channels for the sunscreens on top are shot; split and worn by the sun and weather. I'm gonna have to replace them, and it's either PT or teak, and since I'm not rich, you can guess which one it will be.
I like redwood a lot (grew up in the Santa Cruz mountains on a pice of property with old growth stumps on it,) but out here (east coast) it's as overrated as it is over priced. But that's just my opinion. When I need material for external projects, and wood is spec'd, I recommend cedar, primed and painted, if possible. I've had nothing but success with it.
Thanks very much for the interesting responses. I guess the answer is that it depends on what kind of redwood and what type of pressure-treatment the wood received. I appreciate the information.
Steve
I'll probably take shots for this, but here goes...
My evolved thinking is that wood surfaces on uncovered decks is not practical, at least here in the northeast. PT looks like crap after a few years. So it doesn't rot. It still checks, splits, and deteriorates. Redwood is soft, and too expensive, at least on the east coast. The stuff still weathers, as does pseudo-mohogany and the other exotics. I do not generally admire the 'weathered wood' look.
Unless your home has a 'rustic' look design to begin with, the deteriorating deck will conflict with it within a few short years. So many beautiful 'formal' homes with weathered eyesore decks tacked on out there. Historically, uncovered decks were not common in the northeast for a reason. Ok, partly due to shade-seeking (no a/c), but practicality had to be a factor.
Sure, they can be revived with coatings, but nothing lasts very long. Wood and unprotected horizontal surfaces just do not mix well. Decks in my region are often replaced or substantially rebuilt in less than 10 years. This is a good indicator that the materials are not up to the task. Imagine the amount of arsenic being sent to landfills. What a waste.
I have noticed that many high-end builders in my area are switching to masonry 'terraces' instead of decks. Covered porches are also staging a comeback. Sun-worship went out of style years ago!
Watching each of those competing composite materials carefully to see what 10 years does to them... Some look promising.
lot of good commentary here
where I might take this thread is to growth rings tight old growth redwood would be hard to beat = current pressure treated ( NW would be hemlock ) is typically treated very green and wider growth rings facilitate better transfer of the treatment
hemlock with wide growth rings is not a very satisfactory wood - but I've pulled up a 30+ yr olde growth hemlock exposed deck ( painted top ) where the majority of the wood was like brand new - had 1 / 16th" growth rings that lumber today would be all milled into very expensive interior trim moldings
caveat - I'm an adherrant to any exposed area where concrete meets wood always introduce a barrier be it comp roof shingle or my favorite thing are the rubber pads window glazers use often 1 X 3" anywhere from 1/16 - 1/4" thick invaluable for multitude of uses just don't forget and reach for one thinking it's black licorice
"I have noticed that many high-end builders in my area are switching to masonry 'terraces' instead of decks. "
Can you tell me some more about this? Are they still using a framed PT structure? and what if anything is being used for waterproofing/substrate.
I am designing a project where the terrain drops off 4' under a covered porch, so a wood deck was proposed, however a used brick floor is preferred.
Dean
No, I'm talking about a real self-supporting masonry terrace instead of a wood deck. Sometimes these are placed raised next to the house like a typical deck, but I spot a new trend where masonry terraces or patios are being installed somewhat away from the house and closer to ground level instead of the monster decks of the past. Sometimes these are parked near a covered porch, for the best of both worlds. Even covered porches seem to be getting masonry floors more often now. Some folks want to build with a 50 year useful life in mind. Works with a low-maintenance philosophy.
IMHO, this is a good trend. Monster wood decks are often out of scale with the homes they are attached to, 'fighting' the house, and the surrounding landscape.