My younger brother is convinced he needs to build a straw bale house. He is idealistic, quixotic, penny-less and has spent to much time in Hippyland, California. IMHO!!!! But what I think makes it crazy is that he wants to build it in midcoast Maine 2000 feet from the ocean. It can be quite foggy and moist here pretty much year round. Anyway, I don’t know anything about these straw bale houses. I’m sure they work great in an arrid enviornment but HERE!!!!???!!! So I need some informed opinions on this. Keep in mind the whole project will have to be done on a shoestring budget.
All joking aside, this is a pretty serious issue. I don’t think he realizes what he is about to do and I really would hate to watch him waste his money.
Please help!
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
There are a number of ways to achieve a level foundation and mudsill.
Featured Video
How to Install Exterior Window TrimHighlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
I understand how you feel. Please allow me to share something with you... I have friends like your brother. I used to get my shorts all in a wad over their hare-brained schemes. Until one day I realized they never managed to start anyways. Maybe this will help.
I am a straw bale house fan. But some people should just leave it alone.
So do you have an opinon about building this type of house in moist climates?
There was one built in the deep south in a near costal area. It was built in the 30's I think and is in good condition. I am not sure what to think. But 2,000' from the sea? I'd be leary.
They built a straw bale house here in Minneapolis five years ago or so. It was something of an experiment as nobody had built one in this area before. Unfortunately they tore it down this year...there were massive problems with mold.
I believe the problem stemmed from the synthetic stucco finish they used on the exterior and problems with the moisture barrier on the interior.
That sounds plausible. Synthetic stucco is asking for trouble and a vapor barrier is begging for trouble with straw bale.
In reply to the original question, there is no reason why a straw bale house couldn't work fine if it's done right, even in coastal areas.
The key is "done right."
Done wrong and everybody will be sorry.
DRC
A few more thoughts on straw bale;
Some jurisdictions will allow load-bearing SB homes, most do not. Be that as it may, prudence and common sense should suffice as arguments against a load-bearing SB home.
Most SB homes can be more aptly described as post and beam structures (of one sort or another) with 18" of organic cellulose insulation.
Kinda takes the romance out of it, but it does help clarify the challenge at hand. <g>
The fact that the insulation, upon delivery, varies in density, moisture content, and bug population should be enough to give a sober person pause, but in the immortl words of The Warden, "Some men just can't be reached."
So if the building is constructed according to practices that are generally recognized as sound, great care is taken to keep the straw dry from before the time it is delivered through the end of the useful life of the home, and best practices for ventilation and interior humidity control are observed, there should be no problem.
On the flip side, I have been involved in several straw-bale projects, and I cannot yet find a reason why this would be regarded a desirable building practice. The environmental claims simply do not stand up to rigorous analysis, it's a messy, difficult, expensive way to build, and there are a lot better (stronger, cheaper, faster, more durable) materials which will produce a better result.
If you live on a farm that produces an excess of straw and you need a house, maybe I could see it, otherwise, I think it's mostly philosophy gone awry.
Anyway, after moisture, the next real problem in coastal areas is wind.
A good strong gust of wind can be really tough on that modular cellulose insulation. Trust me on this one, this is not speculative. I'd be curious how one might convince the insurance company that this house is going to be OK in a gale.
Right after wind is wind-driven moisture. Getting a reliable seal around the windows can be a challenge.
Probably enough for now.
Maybe you could talk him into ICF.
Good Luck,
DRC
Thanks Dave ,
Thats just the kind of info I am looking for.
Another question: What would be standard practice for a foundation in an SB house???
Another question: Don't you kinda' hafta' build 2 houses to get one?Brookfield Woodworking
Cushing, Maine
Another question: What would be standard practice for a foundation in an SB house???
That'll depend on jurisdiction. Our building dept. requires a standard foundation. And structural straw bale is not currently allowed here. Now if they'd only learn enough to require the moisture issues be dealt with effectively, they'd be performing a service.
Perhaps you can get him interested in another "green" technology. Tire bales are interesting. No moisture problems. Here's a link: http://www.touchtheearthranch.com/tirebales.htmPAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Funny you mentioned tires. An acquaintance of mine was recently rhapsodizing about the earthship he is going to soon be building that uses tires in the walls (he says they must be radials!) for insulation purposes. I innocently asked about controlling the smell (we live in the desert, the sun gets pretty hot), and he was instantly indignant, assuring me that the drywall would contain any rubber/chemical smell. I find that hard to believe, since you have all those wall penetrations for electrical outlets, light switches, and such. Maybe he's counting on the vapor barrier, but it doesn't seem too effective to me since you penetrate it whenever you hang a picture. I didn't bring any of this up though, my original question had seemed to upset him already and I didn't want to provoke him further. Changed the subject to domes.
So do you know how the smell of cooked tires is controlled in these types of homes? And frankly, if you have to build 5 foot thick walls, couldn't you fill them with jello and still have a significant insulative effect?
So do you know how the smell of cooked tires is controlled in these types of homes? And frankly, if you have to build 5 foot thick walls, couldn't you fill them with jello and still have a significant insulative effect?
I've never seen or heard of anybody drywalling over tires. It's always plaster/stucco. There are two tire houses here. No odor problem that I'm aware of. But I'd NEVER build one. Incredibly labor intensive. Wire runs could easily be in the thick part of the plaster such that the box was still isolated from the tire.
Your friend is all wet about the radials, but that's about all that is readily available. What's necessary is to have the same size for graceful stacking. That same link will take you to another part of the site where he cuts the top sidewall off to aid in dirt filling. Still a lot of labor, but less. Mikey's an interesting guy.
Dirt isn't much for insulation. What you get is a high mass wall that's very comfortable to live with. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. You're right, they can be filled with just about anything you have a lot of. Dennis Weaver's place in S. Colorado used concrete for some inexplicable reason.
Tire bales are the only form of tires I'd consider using, not that I'm seriously considering them. All you need is a forklift. One day of stacking and your walls are ready to finish. A little item often ignored by e shippers is that they're still signing up for a conventional insulated roof of some sort. All they got for all that labor was high mass walls. I pile up dirt on the outside of my walls to get a similar benefit, without all the labor. To each his own...PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Tom, thanks for all the info. We have quite a few homes in this area that were inadvertantly earth sheltered (built the basement and ran out of money, put a roof on top. They look like little buried pods), so I'm loosely familiar with the benefits there. That's why I was a little confused about the whole tire thing - seems like a lot of work to get dirt walls.
I'm positive that Chet said 'drywall', but maybe he just doesn't know the right term. I hope so.
VaTom is pointing you in the right direction.
All that dirt inside the tires has, for all practical purposes, no insulative value. If that were the only problem with earthships, you'd be lucky.
Mass compensated thermal performance is not a new idea or terribly difficult to get a handle on, but I would trust hard data from the Department of Energy long before I would trust an ideologically motivated architect with something to sell you.
If the earthship worked extraordinarily well there might be some justification for pounding all that dirt into all those tires, but the fact is they really don't work very well in any regard. I've renovated a largely failed earthship, and it was appalling.
Earth-sheltered construction can provide significant benefits in controlling the difference in temperature between the inside and the outside of the envelope if we are talking about an insulated wall (for real, like in the range of R-20), and the benefits to thermal performance are indisputable. But with an uninsulated wall the result is quite the reverse. You simply cannot generate enough heat by any means to heat up enough earth (remember, the whole rest of the world is on the other side of those tires) such that you get any of it back.
Compare the U-value of dirt (on the other side of the tires) with the U-value of the air inside the earthship, and it will become obvious.
The theory all sounds attractive at first, but several things become apparent upon closer examination; (1) no science supports any of the claims made by earthship proponents, (2) these things really are not very comfortable in summer or winter, (3) in terms of effort they are incredibly expensive, and (4) all of these re-used materials could be put to far better use through recycling.
The technology to recycle tires is common, and the result is clearly both environmentally and economically beneficial. To take these tires out of the loop forever seems unwarranted.
The walls made out of glass bottles and aluminum cans is patently ridiculous. Both materials are worth far more, on any analysis, than the concrete they displace, and both materials make the coldest walls I've ever seen in my life.
The idea that the air in bottles and cans acts as an insulator is an example of the pseudo-science that is earthship design. As window manufacturers have known for years, once the air space is more than 1/2" wide what you get is a convective loop and a reduction in insulative properties, not an increase.
Lest I be misunderstood, I have nothing but respect and appreciation for anyone who is trying to find new ways to make the built environment more comfortable, practical, affordable, beautiful, and gentle on the environment. I have dedicated much of my career to this.
But when an idea simply doesn't work, we need to have the wherewithal to admit this, learn from it, and move on. The earthship idea should have been laid to rest a long time ago.
DRC
"The idea that the air in bottles and cans acts as an insulator is an example of the pseudo-science that is earthship design. As window manufacturers have known for years, once the air space is more than 1/2" wide what you get is a convective loop and a reduction in insulative properties, not an increase. "
Had they ever been in my home, they wouldn't have needed to look at real science to know that. Some genius put aluminum windows in with one on the outside of the 2x6 wall and one on the inside. There's a good 3" separating the 2 windows, what a waste of money on the second set! Eventually I'll replace them, but then I think I'll have to bring them up to code, which means dropping the sill 2 feet on several to make correct fire egress in the bedrooms, which means much bigger window area. I can't afford that just now, but someday...
Thanks for all of the good info on 'earthship' construction and related matters. I have mixed feelings about this altogether. While I believe that new construction should be as efficient as modern technology can make it, I believe that there should be a lot less new construction than there is. Rather than wasting the resources that were put into existing homes, find ways to make them more efficient and to fit better in a modern lifestyle. But that is another thread.
Hey, while we are here, what is code for egress bedroom windows?
In our plans we put 3' by 3' in there so to have more wall for dressers under them. Do I read you right that we need 3' by 5's for that code?
I'm only a homeowner, so not the one to ask, but around here 3'x3' would pass. My information was that egress windows must be a minimum of 5.7 sq feet, at least 24" high and at least 20" wide. The sill can not be more than 44" off the finished floor (that's the one that catches us up - on the older part of the house they are about 60" off the floor). Although those are the minimums, when we did our addition, egress windows from the basement were 4'x4', which seems to be a standard around here. That makes sense to me because you want the firemen to be able to get in with their equipment and save your life.
That all depends on style too. A 3'x3' casement will pass egress test but not a double hung, if there were such an animal. So 3x5 is often necessary for the openned unit to have a clear space that high..
Excellence is its own reward!
I'm glad to hear your thoughts as well.
"Rather than wasting the resources that were put into existing homes, find ways to make them more efficient and to fit better in a modern lifestyle. But that is another thread."
I find that encouraging. I'd like to hear anything you have to say about this.
DRC
Well, I'm just Jill Schmoe, not a construction person, so my thoughts are rather vague and unfocused, but here's a few anyway to hear myself type. Mainly, existing homes could be improved using modern technology to make them more efficient in heating and cooling, better mechanicals, better lighting, and floor plans to accomodate modern families. The rest of this too-long note is just examples of that, so feel free to skip it.
Once a house is built, siting is one thing that can't be changed (at least without great expense). But there must be research SOMEWHERE on how to introduce some passive solar elements into an existing structure. Even for new construction this area seems so limited. We put an addition onto our house to replace a falling down porch, and the only passive solar designs I could find involved no basement. Well, that just doesn't work around here - the basement is our best living space, staying cooler in summer and warmer in winter. Why would we want to eliminate that? We ended up going with completely traditional construction, but included skylights. I know that they aren't energy efficient in traditional usage - but actually having that escape valve for hot air, along with the ceiling fan makes a huge difference in an un-air conditioned room.
I'd love to know more on how to insulate an existing home better without turning it into a sick house/mold factory. Can I retrofit an air exchanger, and should I?
A big one for most owners of existing homes: How can I upgrade the materials and mechanicals on my existing home without damaging it? On the subject of roofs, my shake roof was a cold roof by virtue of the fact that there were 1/2"-1" gaps between the shakes when dry and when it wasn't raining you could see daylight. Now it isn't a cold roof, but the shingle material is far less of a fire hazard as well (and the critter population is way down). After CA's fires, maybe it shouldn't be a cold roof- Utah is high desert too. I'd like to know more about this, without all the vitriole that usually accompanies venting discussions. I'd like to know what I should do instead. SIPs look pretty cool - would an existing house benefit by replacing the roof structure with these? I dunno, but I'd like to.
I'd like to see clever ways to introduce natural light into my concrete basement that don't involve excavation and having the guy saw out concrete (what we did). I know sailors of old used prisms to get light from the deck down into the ship, It would be cool to have something like that - a retrofit window that amplifies the light. How many people would be happier in a smallish room if it had better natural light, maybe through a small transom above the existing window? Those people might feel less need to remodel and 'open up the space', because well-lit rooms feel more open.
I'd like a way to balance fenestration with shear values. On a small home, 4 foot corners takes a lot out of how much window you can have. I see commercial construction that doesn't have a 4 foot shear wall at each corner, it would be nice to extend that technology to residential building so that we could keep the lower square footage and still have some light in the place.
I'd like to have an inkling before I call the electrician how much it is going to cost to upgrade my 60 amp service to 100 amps so I don't waste time for either of us. And should I? Modern appliances seem to be putting a strain on my electrical service. I've read that solar homes really require special appliances to handle the lower electrical availability. So, maybe I could replace some of my appliances with those. But then the question begs as to whether I'd be completely unsatisfied with their performance - Real Goods certainly isn't going to tell me.
I'd like to have an inkling before I call the plumber how much it is going to cost to replace my galvanized pipe.
As for floor plans, people are always shocked at how much it costs to knock out a wall (if it is load bearing). But they can put a nice 6 foot opening in it for little expense (just a header and studs) and that opens things up considerably. The remodeling craze seems to have swamped common sense when it comes to adjusting one's home. So people just go out and build a new one, it's cheaper.
Does this incredibly long note cover it? No. But I think that many people would be willing to consider staying in an existing home if they could insulate it, have decent lighting, upgrade the electrical, and upgrade the plumbing - and have these things pay off by improving the efficiency of their home. Even better if the sum of these parts is less expensive than new construction.
Earth-sheltered construction can provide significant benefits in controlling the difference in temperature between the inside and the outside of the envelope if we are talking about an insulated wall (for real, like in the range of R-20), and the benefits to thermal performance are indisputable. But with an uninsulated wall the result is quite the reverse. You simply cannot generate enough heat by any means to heat up enough earth (remember, the whole rest of the world is on the other side of those tires) such that you get any of it back.
Dave,
We are mostly on the same page but the highlighted is counter to the situation for passive annual heat storage (PAHS). The whole point is to dump heat during excess periods and get it back during deficit periods. Hait found that heat moves through dry soil at a 20'/6 month rate. What we're doing is similar to a flywheel. Heat up the mass for 6 months and regain heat for 6 months when the mass is warmer than the house. This requires uninsulated walls (the buried ones), roof, and floor. The house mass is then insulated out to a 20' perimeter. Beyond that the surplus heat, from the year before last, is largely lost. Not a problem.
Here's a link to an excerpt: http://www.axwoodfarm.com/PAHS/UmbrellaHouse.html
Our 10* annual temperature swing last year cannot be attributed to our meager insulation or climate. It takes about 3 years for PAHS to stabilize. Then livin' is easy.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
It takes about 3 years for PAHS to stabilize.
The point that may have been missed in the translation, as were, is that there is a stablized temperature range. After earth sheltering, say that the structure stabilizes into a range between 52° and 82° (just an example, let's assume a roof and window exposure that has too much heat loss/gain). The cost of heating 52° air up to 68° is always going to be less than the cost of heating outside air to that temperture. The cost of cooling 82° air down to, say, 78°, is also negligible. (Latter case might actually be more expensive, as the a/c would have to be sized for very short run times very infrequently.)
Full earth sheltering (berming the walls & soil over roof) has some advantages and some disadvantages. Insuring proper drainage on the roof takes some time & effort. And careful planning is needed unless one likes to mow around the plumbing stacks. From Wichita to Wichita Falls, earth sheltering makes energy efficiency sense--just doesn't "look" like a "regular" house. Construction is not too "far out," either--you can use a slab on grade and block wall construction with fairly typical waterproofing & drainage.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I'll have to check out the link later, but thanks for the explanation.
Insulation of course makes all the difference. What you said about insulating 20' out makes good sense to me, as well. I have no doubt at all about the value of mass-compensated thermal performance, and have built homes that work well in that regard, some of them earth-sheltered.
I'll look forward to learning more about this.
DRC
I'll look forward to learning more about this.
Glad you're interested. I hope you and CapnMac both take a quick read. This is decidedly different from "earth sheltered", which clearly works pretty well on it's own.
My 10* annual temperature swing would be considered a relative failure by the author who got 7*. I didn't/don't want to live in his underground igloo. We have large exposed walls and 400' of glass for our 20k cu ft. As an economy measure we also have half the recommended dirt overhead under the insulation umbrella. I won't make that mistake again. Not that our 10* swing is hard to live with.
This actually is very simple low-cost construction. Nothing at all complicated about our penetrationless roof, other than deciding what to grow up there. And with the umbrella keeping all the dirt under it dry, water-proofing of the buried walls, and roof, is a non-issue.
I've put an umbrella around a conventional house and found that the basement got similar benefits. It's a lot cheaper than setting up drainage and water-proofing, as long as there's no landscaping penalty. PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
That was a fascinating read. Thanks for the link. It seems like that would work perfectly here in Utah where it is hot hot hot in the summer and reasonably cold in the winter, and in most places the soil is fairly dry. It wouldn't work on my lot though, I'd need to head up higher into the mountains to escape the water table.
It wouldn't work on my lot though, I'd need to head up higher into the mountains to escape the water table.
Or find enough dirt to import a hill. We built on top of what passes for a mountain in Va. Wasn't enough dirt from the excavation to bury the house. I felt pretty dumb paying a guy with a dump truck to make repeated trips to the top of a mountain and dump out dirt. But the other choice was to mow down a lot of trees and dig a big hole that I didn't want.
There's an unPAHS buried house in Saginaw, Michigan. Land is flat as a pancake with high water table. Then, all of a sudden, was this little bump with a house under it. They mowed the whole thing (teletubbies?) but it would have suited my sensibilities better with different landscaping. We grow veggies on our roof. "Honey, would you go up on the roof and pick a tomato and greens for dinner?"
Happy to hear you enjoyed the excerpt. Keep thinking about it. Extremely few places are inappropriate and the economy works.
PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Interesting that you said SB construction is expensive, my brother claims very low cost.
The foundations are commonly either two rows of CMU or two rows of ICF on a wide footing. Alternately, with a monoslab, the turndown is a little wider.
If double stemwalls, pumice or gravel is used as a capillary break and as filler between the walls.
In any case, yes, it does start feeling like two houses pretty quickly.
If one were to go with conventional wood framing with straw bales attatched (a very bad idea, I've seen it done) then the cost becomes absurd.
As for expense, well, there is just more of everything. Especially labor.
Windows and doors go into framing bucks, you can easily see how much framing ends up in these "straw" walls.
And stucco. Oh, my, the amount of stucco it takes to fill in all that rough, wavy area. Same for plaster.
Stucco is supposed to be 7/8" thick. If it's 1-1/2" thick or more, there goes the budget.
And the lathe. Where do we attach it? Oh yeah, we sew it through the bales.
There goes the budget.
And the electrical boxes -- what do we attach them to?
There goes the budget.
And cabinets, and trim, and fixtures . . . .
You get the idea.
DRC
Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to get candid, accurate assessments of budget versus job cost from owner-builders who have a great deal of personal (emotional) investment and ideological committment.
As a project manager and site superintendant, I can assure you that taken in their entirety these houses are not cheap.
They can be beautiful, energy efficient, personally rewarding, quiet, comfortable, and many other good things, but they will most assuredly not be cheap.
I am not against straw bale or any other form of alternative construction -- I have dedicated years of my career to learning such things. I am simply advocating clarity about what this type of construction really means.
As I pointed out on BT back in 1998 or 1999, there are no alternative laws of physics and one should always regard alternative laws of economics with a great deal of suspicion. Doubly so if the project involves volunteer labor.
If he thinks this is going to be cheap he needs to make a new plan or be sorely disappointed.
Best OF Luck,
DRC
Dave,
Thank you very, very much for your time and for the information.
-eweCushing, Maine
The best way to build efficiently, inexpensively and with unequivocal environmental soundness, is to build modest amounts of square footage. If the design allows enduring affection toward it, manifested in the form of maintenance and the execution was thoughtful, making for easy maintenance- than more could not be asked for.
Almost any well-understood material could perform within this axiom. The problem with straw bale is that it is not so easily understood.
Lance
This quarterly southwest magazine had an issue with a story about a straw bale house. A very neat house and was built wheelchair accessible.
Here is the start of that story but you will have to order the magazine as I let mine out and is not back yet: http://www.sucasamagazine.com/Summer_2003/pages/healthyliving.html
You're most welcome.
DRC
Ok, assume your brother is correct on the low cost walls. Does the straw make the roof cheaper? Does it make the plumbing cheaper? Electrical, carpet, appliances, etc.?
Stubs and insulation are cheap and only a small fraction of the cost of a house.
What really is to be gained?
idealistic, quixotic, penny-less
All very good things, I would say. (Except the pennyless part, maybe).
The problem I see here is a principle that I hold close: that the materials for building should be indigenous as much as possible.
Ask your brother (admirable in his implied care for the earth) if he thinks that trucking strawbales from the nearest place, (the midwest?) and all the attendant pollution that entails is good for mother earth.
I am actually a fan, of hay-bale houses. I grew up on the prairies playing in haybale forts and thought of the haybale idea for a house many times before I read about it. It especially made sense in the '60's when straw was a real surplus and went to waste, was even burned, on the farms.
Anyway, I think we should use what's closest to us. Pacific NW-use red cedar and fir--it works.
Eastern seaboard-oaks and pines, maples (you're so lucky!)
ETC. ETC.
Alan
A yurt works well in moderate climates, has been developed and refined over centuries. As does an igloo in the far north.
Put that yurt on a two wheel cart like the Mongols and a way you go!
A good friend has been building passive solar/timber frame homes for quite some time. A couple of years ago he completed a straw bale house that he was very pleased with. This may be a good time to ask him for some feedback on construction, costs and how it has faired over this period. The home was built in central PA, not too terribly far from State College. It is often very wet around here, and this summer has been a veritable temperate rain forest. Email me and I will send you his email address, and you can say I suggested he contact you. [email protected]
Straw bale house builders seem to like writing articles almost as much as building straw houses... Lots of info on the Web
A couple of (random) selections:
http://www.swarthmore.edu/es/strawbale.html
http://www.ahouseofstraw.com/details.htm
http://www.balewatch.com/questions.html
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0596/et0596s2.html
http://www.life.ca/nl/45/strawbale.html
http://www.connectionsmagazine.bc.ca/Past_Issue/spring01/house.html
Maybe you could convince him to build with strawboard instead(4x8 sheet stock made of compresed straw instead of wood shavings) at least for the sheathing.
Wheatboard is partical board and an MFD product and not structural.
I have not heard of anyone using straw stalks, verse the "flour", to make a structural "osb like" pannel.
Having done some research, and some work on straw bale, (here in quirky Calif.) we will be building one next year in the Sierra Foothills. It will be in-fill as opposed to load-bearing. There are many in the area, and also where we hail from, (San Luis Obispo area). A few years back, a huge fire swept through a canyon leveling many custom built homes. After the smoke cleared, the only thing left was a straw bale bench area built by a homeowner who has since re-built with straw, and is a successful straw-bale archy/builder. Now that we live in fire country, we look foreward to building something that might be less fire prone, and, (if built correctly) give us many years of trouble free, comfortable shelter. Just one womans' opinion. Beck
Personally I don't know what is wrong with greenies. Actually in many ways I consider myself one, the only difference is that I think (MHO) I engage the brain.
TREES ARE GREEN, MAN. Given sound management trees are renewal. Heck, given unsound management trees are renewal.
So for heaven's sake go ahead, use wood. We will and do grow more! Facts are that our forests are now so unhealthy that more wood rots in the forest (by far) than is cut. This is crazy.
Again, JMHO
Cushing, eyhah?
I'm over on Islesboro.
Here's my take on all this.
Straw is not structural so there mus be a timberframe to handle the snow and wind loads. Timberframe is more expensive than normal stick frame construction.
There is no straw in Maine. a couple of small barley farms but livestock people use grass hay and sawdust for bedding their animals because straw is unavailable or exceedingly expensive. Hay is a crap shoot getting it in under cover dry every year. Sometimes it is going moldy after a couple of months. Sometimes the heat of that process causes spontaneous infernal combustion.
He would then need a way to keep it dry when it is delivered. I suppose the only way to proceed with all this would be to import the hay in a referidgerator truck, having already built the frame and a roof over so it can be unloaded to the slab within. How he would keep moisture out of it until he stuccos is beyond my brain to conceive of but I'm sure that his California modified mind can and will come up with something.
Then there is the question of property. If close in, he would need to demonstrate that it will be fire resistant or the neighbors will be leery. The homeowners insurance company could be leery also. The rates here have gone up considerably in the last couple of years. I'm sure you are aware that property and developement costs often exceed the construction costs. If he is penniless, he should buy land in northern Maine and build a cabin instead
Excellence is its own reward!
One of my brothers had a strawbale guest house built last Spring in Central Oregon (High Desert, dry climate, etc.)
As Piff says, the straw is just a filler...Bro's structure was a timber frame and stucco job...straw work done by volunteers from a local Community College.
Structure is about 1K sq. ft. Includes a kitchen, a nice spacious bath and some good tile work. Final cost was over $100K (in an area where straw is cheap and abundant).
Seemed a little steep to me, given the hype I heard about the projected low costs before the project started.
But, he and his wife are happy with the final product. (And I do like the deep window wells!)
To each his own!
Hmmm...
Straw is not structural so there mus be a timberframe to handle the snow and wind loads.
I assume you are referring to a specific house and not straw bale houses in general, as from what I have read, using the straw bale walls themselves as structual support of the roof is fairly common. (However, I do not have any first hand experience with straw bale building, and having bucked many bales in my youth, I do not intend to gain any...)
From (obviously Piffin, you neglected your homework assignment and did not read all of the supplementary readings I posted above...) http://www.life.ca/nl/45/strawbale.html
The Nebraska style is the original, and most popular, method of construction. Straw bales 35-inches long, 18-inches wide and 14-inches high are piled on top of each other just like bricks, with each bale resting on the two immediately below it. Rebar (metal reinforcement rods) or poles are jammed through the bales (two per bale) to prevent the wall from falling apart. A top plate is added, and the roof sits on the plate, with the bales taking the entire load of the roof. After allowing two to four weeks for the building to settle, the walls are parged, or covered, with concrete. These walls can be flimsy, and if they become infested or wet from leaking rain or water on the ground, entire walls can be damaged.
I agree with Casey. My sources (mostly Countryside magazine and various web sites) indicate that it is quite possible to build structurally sound bearing walls with straw bales. From my reading, the code writers were more concerned with process control issues and longevity of improperly installed straw bale walls than with the load bearing capacity of the material.
It may well be that no building code in the US authorizes load bearing straw bale walls, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
However, if you use straw bales only for infill and/or have to truck them any distance, the financial advantage over any other type of insulation narrows or disappears.
I agree with Casey. My sources (mostly Countryside magazine and various web sites) indicate that it is quite possible to build structurally sound bearing walls with straw bales. From my reading, the code writers were more concerned with process control issues and longevity of improperly installed straw bale walls than with the load bearing capacity of the material.
Yea, I've heard many times it is possible, but have you ever heard of one actually being sucessfully completed? More often than not, the project starts out with load bearing ambitions, that get turned into infill once reality hits (wasn't there an article in FHB some years ago along these lines).
Alot of these seem to be built by well-meaning folks who don't think things through thoroughly. Case in point: years ago, in the Oregonian newspaper here there was an article about someone who built a strawbale house. Typical middle-aged ex-hippie, who chose strawbale over stick-frame because of "the terrible things we're doing to our forests". Of course, read the article further, and you discover what she built was a post and beam house, with strawbale infill insulation. So instead of using 2x4's from young, 2rd-3rd-4th growth trees, she used heavy timbers, which tend to come from older trees, and make far less efficient use of the harvested lumber. Duh?
>> ... but have you ever heard of one actually being sucessfully completed?
Yes, at least one. And it was even inspected and approved. It was built on a slab, IIRC, and had continuous rebar from the base up through the top plate, where threaded rod was attached. The top plate was a box beam and it was torqued down, using nuts on the threaded rod, until the whole wall was in compression and the top of the plate was level all the way around, making a sound base for the roof trusses.
They built a test wall for the inspector and used two oblong galvanized stock watering tanks to load it. With the water and the crew in the tanks (it was a hot day) their test load was quite a bit more than the inspector required, so he was happy with it.
I believe it was in Countryside magazine, six to eight years ago. I can probably look it up if you're interested.
"These walls can be flimsy"
"Straw is not structural"
Your source and my information are in agreement.
No, I did not read any of your links cited. I only commented from my own knowledge. I have never built one and don't intend to. I remember the story of the three little pigs. But I have read an article or two which have stressed the need for structural timbers to support roof loads. Obviously not everyone thinks it is important to avoid flimsy walls..
Excellence is its own reward!
>I remember the story of the three little pigs.
Which would lead to a new industry slogan: "Brick--when you want to build a real pig sty."