[GSBN] Question for you

[Derek Roff]

I agree that Chris offers a great answer.  I'd like to add one more 
dimension.  In many places and jurisdictions, the legal and financial 
systems (including taxation, financing and insurance) ignore or 
penalize innovation generally, and thick walls specifically.  As we 
know, the direct costs of thicker walls are modest, and easily 
compensated by the advantages of strawbale.  But when one is taxed, 
financed, and regulated on the outside measurements of a house, that 
becomes an additional liability and price for thick-walled 
structures.  In locations where houses are measured and permitted by 
the "hat print", overhangs disappear.  This is bad for every 
construction technique, but especially dangerous for lightweight 
steel framing and for strawbale.

So to all the fiddly bits in strawbale construction, there are shadow 
fiddly bits in the permitting, legal, and financial requirements.

Derelict

Derek Roff
Language Learning Center
Ortega Hall 129, MSC03-2100
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
Internet: derek at unm.edu


--On Sunday, October 17, 2010 12:55 PM -0400 Chris Magwood 
<chris at chrismagwood.ca> wrote:

>   Joyce,
>
> That same question can be asked about all too many systems that are
> significant improvements on their mainstream counterparts, not just
> straw bale. So there's a meta-answer to that question, and then
> there are straw bale specific answers.
>
> The meta-answer has to do with our natural human tendency to keep
> doing what we've always done and improve it in small, measurable
> ways rather than change to new systems. To sum it all up: Humans
> are good at doing things better, but lousy at doing better things.
> We'd rather tinker with slightly improved cars than figure out a
> new transportation system. Etc.
>
> The straw bale specific answer is one I've thought lots about. The
> bottom line is it's just too messy and inexact a technique to be
> put into widespread, mainstream use. It's next to impossible to
> train people to do straw bale without lots and lots of on-site
> experience. There are too many ways to do it, too many variables
> and inconsistencies. From getting the bales (which are always
> differently shaped, sized, weighted and priced) to the different
> kinds of framing, plastering, etc, the whole process is well suited
> to owner-builders or committed professionals, but no so friendly to
> the guy (and yes, I'm being gender specific here!) who just wants
> to build some houses for a living, or the developers who want to
> hire him to do that. We all love these parts of straw bale building
> because we're attracted to innovation, creativity and community
> involvement in building. We are a minority. And if you're not one
> of us, the whole thing is just too much to bother with. And having
> spent a long time making a living as a builder, I know that it was
> only because my clients were highly predisposed to want a bale
> building and were willing to put up with all the hiccups a bale
> building entails (tarps, mess, plaster finishes...) for all the
> advantages we know and love. But for most builders and homeowners,
> the scales just don't tip in that direction.
>
> This is the reason I've been so keen to develop the prefab strategy
> I've been working on. This year, we built walls for our Habitat for
> Humanity build that were cheaper than their conventionally framed
> option and still had all the benefits of bale building. They are
> now interested in buying bale walls for future projects. But this
> is only because they show up pre-plastered, and fit perfectly
> according to the plans. There's no way the same organization would
> consider using site baled walls.
>
> So I think the honest answer you need to give your questioner is
> that there are too many disadvantages to bale walls. They don't
> detract from all the things we see as advantages... those
> advantages are real and should be weighted heavily. But everybody
> has to weigh up their options, and from a mainstream point of view,
> the scale still tips towards bale's disadvantages.
>
> Chris
>
> On 10-10-17 12:15 PM, Joyce Coppinger wrote:
>> The other day I was asked this question:
>>
>> If strawbale is such a good building method and material, can pass
>> codes, can be insured, can be funded through mortgage or other
>> lending, uses a crop residue that is annually renewable and might
>> otherwise go to waste, has a high energy-efficiency value, can be
>> built in most climates, if not all, can be built rather easily by
>> owner/builders or professional builders, why aren't there more
>> straw-bale buildings being constructed?
>>
>>
>> Joyce
>> ---------------
>> Joyce Coppinger
>> Managing Editor/Publisher
>> The Last Straw, the international journal
>> of strawbale and natural building
>> PO Box 22706, Lincoln NE 68542-2706
>> Phone 402.483.5135
>> <thelaststraw at thelaststraw.org>
>> web site: www.thelaststraw.org
>> and our new blog at http://thelaststrawblog.org