So what average construction cost for a 1,290 ft2 bungalow would you expect? I get the impression that they are not talking about just materials costs here.
Btw, I concur with @TobinL here. A statement of profession suffices without leaving you open to hassle. I’m more than willing to take you at your word.
I am sure there is maintenance, but the oldest wood building in the world is from 800 AD.
At any rate, we have been building out of wood for centuries. Properly treated and with a good roof over it, I don’t see why it would waste away much more than most other structures. Sure stone or brick would last longer.
I dunno, thats a lot of pounding, vs guys with nail guns going blam blam blam. But I admit my knowledge is limited on this stuff.
That’s a fair point. Don’t they also have prefab construction using modern materials that cuts down on cost? Course no one wants pre-fab, they want “custom”. I still don’t see this having wide spread use. Perhaps though it will lead to labor saving construction using different materials?
True, but I suspect @Glaurung is right about air tightness doing most of the work in that climate. It wouldn’t be particularly hard to adapt that construction method to a different insulating material, though, although you lose some of the “greenness”.
Uh, no. As a Certified Passive House Consultant, I can say definitively that this is so far from qualifying as an actual Passivehaus that it is silly. Achieving an airtightness of 0.6ACH 50 is very difficult to do, and stacking wood without sealing, and dovetail joints with normal wood irregularities will leak air like a sieve when pressurized. The cavity is not particularly wider than the average 2x6 stud wall, which when packed with cellulose will not be close to meeting insulation standards required to achieve the 120 kWh/m² in almost any climate. And finally, as someone with a knowledge of Building Science, there is no attempt to control vapor drive and condensation surfaces in this assembly. Moisture will condense either in the cellulose (bad) or on the backside of the exterior wood (condensing surface) creating a problem. The only thing it has going for it is its drying ability in all directions, but there is no rain screen or other such approach to manage bulk water, sun driven vapor, wind driven moisture, bulk water capillary action, etc. A competent crew can frame, sheath, waterproof, and side a wall way faster than this laborious hammering together each small section. Plus adapting to irregular openings, jogs, cantilevers, etc. is real trouble with this system. Also, when your siding deteriorates in this system, so does your structure - it is not sacrificial, and easily replaceable. And finally, where is the shear diaphragm in these walls? The dovetails only lock to each other horizontally; nothing lock each course together horizontally or diagonally.
Silly system this is. Kinda cool, but oh so impractical and problematic.
The roof frames are made with nail plates. In a major fire those roofs have an increased tendency to collapse without warning. Numerous collapses and deaths of firefighters have been documented. But hey, it’s cheap.
Anything thoroughly coated with tar or wrapped in Tyvek is airtight and watertight for insulation purposes.
With that caveat, I concur heartily with @HippityHop, especially in re: lack of diagonals in this house kit.
I’ve actually seen plenty of nail-and-glue free buildings; my recently rebuilt stable is pegged mortise and tenon, and there have been some SIP systems made to lock together without nails. But oddball, creative stuff like this is a big reason I keep coming back to bOINGbOING, regardless of how practical it might be!