Dublin City Council set to allow families build log cabins in back gardens

gctest50

kceire wrote: »

Is your rant over?

Wider doors provide access to people using crutches, older people using walking sticks like yourself someday (probably soon by the sounds of it). Pregnant women are temporarily disable and as such require wider spaces.

Access is not only about wheelchairs and if you had your blinkers off for a second you’d understand that.

You don’t like it, build in another county. That’s short end of the stick.

By the way, did any of those manufacturers come back to you on how their log cabins meet Building Regulations, particularly fire safety? https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109063943&postcount=5

.

Gumbo

Brontosaurus wrote: »

The point is that no one has the right to demand entry onto or into private property. Regulating that you must build in such away as to allow such access into a private dwelling goes against the notion of private property. The only reason this discussion has gotten this far is due to the average Irishman's inability to think and act as an individual. It's a very logical and straightforward position to have, I don't see what is so hard to understand about it. I've yet to see a reasonable counterargument other than "but the regulations say so!".

I'm hardly a dinosaur BTW, I'm probably the youngest person in this thread.

Simples. Don’t build here. Build in another country.
Petty of you to assume you are youngest here based on your views, incorrect I might add. You talk about the nanny state making you put handrails in your toilets.....there are no regulations for handrails in toilets so it makes me wonder what else you have intrepretated incorrectly.

7aubzxk43m2sni

kceire wrote: »

Simples. Don’t build here. Build in another country.
Petty of you to assume you are youngest here based on your views, incorrect I might add. You talk about the nanny state making you put handrails in your toilets.....there are no regulations for handrails in toilets so it makes me wonder what else you have intrepretated incorrectly.

"Don't build here" is a stupid answer.

sydthebeat

Tatiana Old Detective wrote: »

"Don't build here" is a stupid answer.

a stupid answer to what question?

having your home only accessible to able-bodied people is discriminatory.

Gumbo

Tatiana Old Detective wrote: »

"Don't build here" is a stupid answer.

Not complying with our Building Regulations and constructing your home to cater for disabled people (including the home owner in the future) is a stupid opinion to have.

This is the law of the land, you don't like it, we have freedom of movement to go elsewhere.

listermint

kceire wrote: »

Not complying with our Building Regulations and constructing your home to cater for disabled people (including the home owner in the future) is a stupid opinion to have.

This is the law of the land, you don't like it, we have freedom of movement to go elsewhere.

I dont think the OP actually really cares about regs or any of that stuff.

Basically they cant afford to buy a house right now, so they looked into building they cant afford to build right now so they went on a rant.

1 - about owning your own land and doing what you want on it.
2 - being oppressed by regulations.

Basically the OP needs to start saving properly and stop looking for quick fixes and blaming everyone else. There is nothing new or interesting about their rant they are in the same boat as everyone else.

Housing is not cheap, anywhere. not in Ireland not anywhere.

Lumen

listermint wrote: »

Basically the OP needs to start saving properly

That's the bit I don't understand about the original subject of this thread.

If you have 50k lying around to build a proper "log cabin" in your back garden for your kids to live in, why would you not just give the 50k to them for an apartment deposit and act as guarantor on their loan? It seems like a much better use of 50k than building a temporary structure that they'll move out of as soon as they can.

An_Toirpin

sydthebeat wrote: »

a stupid answer to what question?

having your home only accessible to able-bodied people is discriminatory.

Well as it is it is legal to build homes that are not very useful to disabled people. I think there are some misconceptions. All new public buildings are required to be accessible to people in wheelchairs. New private housing is not the same although there is some regulation. The language of the regulation is rather vague to me and that may explain why I have seen stairs outside of new homes in places.



It is also worth pointing out that governments everywhere generally do a poor job and this applies to build regulations too. We might thank them for the improved quality of houses since 2011 but Irish politicians also hugely undermined high rise in Ireland with too much regulation. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about energy efficient houses will tell you that the state system BER system is hugely unreliable and misleading while the private cert system PassivHaus is excellent and extremely stringent. Building codes have their place but if you rely on them you are in for a disappointment.

BryanF

Brontosaurus Have the day off for ignoring mod instruction

To all others,
This is the construction & planning forum, any discriminator or inflammatory posts will be harshly treated from here on

An_Toirpin

BryanF wrote: »

Brontosaurus Have the day off for ignoring mod instruction

To all others,
This is the construction & planning forum, any discriminator or inflammatory posts will be harshly treated from here on

???
Where are the discriminatory posts?

Also no one anywhere urged for any law breaking.

sydthebeat

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Well as it is it is legal to build homes that are not very useful to disabled people. I think there are some misconceptions. All new public buildings are required to be accessible to people in wheelchairs. New private housing is not the same although there is some regulation. The language of the regulation is rather vague to me and that may explain why I have seen stairs outside of new homes in places.



It is also worth pointing out that governments everywhere generally do a poor job and this applies to build regulations too. We might thank them for the improved quality of houses since 2011 but Irish politicians also hugely undermined high rise in Ireland with too much regulation. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about energy efficient houses will tell you that the state system BER system is hugely unreliable and misleading while the private cert system PassivHaus is excellent and extremely stringent. Building codes have their place but if you rely on them you are in for a disappointment.

you dont need to explain the building regulations, or the ethos of the building regulations, to me... ive been working intimately with them for the last 25 years... and ive been involved in the actual drafting some of them.

also, comparing BER to passivhaus is a complete fallacy as they are not used for the same thing, and do not claim to either. The BER system is a method to compare the energy efficiency of similar dwellings of similar ages, using averaged assumptions throughout. The passive house system is measurement of the energy efficient of a specific build with very little or no assumptions or averages included. One does not counter or negate the other.

It would be much better to compare the Irish BER system to the British SAP system ... these are two systems which claim to do the same thing. and if you compare the two, youd actually see that the Irish system is superior as it includes more input factors and thus is less arbitrary.

An_Toirpin

sydthebeat wrote: »

you dont need to explain the building regulations, or the ethos of the building regulations, to me... ive been working intimately with them for the last 25 years... and ive been involved in the actual drafting some of them.

also, comparing BER to passivhaus is a complete fallacy as they are not used for the same thing, and do not claim to either. The BER system is a method to compare the energy efficiency of similar dwellings of similar ages, using averaged assumptions throughout. The passive house system is measurement of the energy efficient of a specific build with very little or no assumptions or averages included. One does not counter or negate the other.

It would be much better to compare the Irish BER system to the British SAP system ... these are two systems which claim to do the same thing. and if you compare the two, youd actually see that the Irish system is superior as it includes more input factors and thus is less arbitrary.

The BER isnt the same of course as you point out. But in the minds of the public a BER high A house is supposed to be like a passive house but it just isn't. Frankly any goverment agency such as the SEAI couldnt in a million years develop something as effective as passive certification. The BER has been very postive for Ireland but it is very hit and miss, and I pointed out elsewhere even a BER A2 house can be very cold and draughty. The BER system duped me.

JimmyMW

Brontosaurus wrote: »

So you think ever stricter regulations is a good thing, and you don't see an issue with them not being reversible? That's lunacy. You'll think that until there is a new regulation brought in that you find silly or unjust, by which point there will be nothing you can do.

I'm still waiting for regulation making it easier for the blind to access your homes. Also for those with autism, there should be nothing that could upset them like highly contrasting colours and other potential visual triggers. Also, in case a muslim or jew wants to enter your home please don't have any pork or alcohol. Also no beef in case a hindu demands a visit.

If no one here can see the absurdity of requiring that your home is accessible to wheelchairs, implying that someone has a right to access your private property, then all hope is lost.

Brontosaurus wrote: »

Again you missed the point. The point is on my own private property, no one has right of access (unless they are garda or emergency services etc.). It is rediculous to assume the nanny state knows best and can impose such restrictions on someone's property. You are saying that someone has the right to access your home. I wasn't the one who mentioned wheelchairs in the first place.

As for the old and those in crutches, again, if I build a home for ME, it is under my discretion whether or not to have wide doorways. If it makes life difficult for me in the future, tough, that is my choice to make. Pregnant women aren't "disabled" in nearly the same way.

Again, the point is that it imposes on individual sovereignty and the principles or private property.

But this will just devolve further into trying to explain the pitfalls of over-regulation.

The log cabin is a sperate thread, petty of you to mention it. They did get back, as they said they can build to meet building regulations. The price they quoted me is for the barebones. It works out to about 450 per sqm for the house itself. The specific company has a few homes built. The hassle is getting PP.

Brontosaurus wrote: »

The point is that no one has the right to demand entry onto or into private property. Regulating that you must build in such away as to allow such access into a private dwelling goes against the notion of private property. The only reason this discussion has gotten this far is due to the average Irishman's inability to think and act as an individual. It's a very logical and straightforward position to have, I don't see what is so hard to understand about it. I've yet to see a reasonable counterargument other than "but the regulations say so!".

I'm hardly a dinosaur BTW, I'm probably the youngest person in this thread.

This attitude is absolutely ridiculous, shur not waring a seatbelt shouldn't be an offense with this type of logic, I fear for the progression of the country with the existence of this type of attitude.

sydthebeat

JimmyMW wrote: »

I fear for the progression of the country with the existence of this type of attitude.

and thats why we have laws and regulations... to protect some people from themselves..... as they clearly need protection

An_Toirpin

JimmyMW wrote: »

This attitude is absolutely ridiculous, shur not waring a seatbelt shouldn't be an offence with this type of logic, I fear for the progression of the country with the existence of this type of attitude.

I can see where you are coming from but seat belts protect people from killing other people with their cavaders when they crash. Roads are shared spaces where there is rules for all to allow safe use. It is totally uncomparable. Building codes only affect new houses. If was so terrible it would be a law that effects all houses. Personally, I don't see any need for all new houses to be fully accessible to wheelchair users (although it should be encouraged). But I see a lot of sense for it to be incentivised, or to force developers to make a certain percent accessible.



My body my choice my house my choice. Generally speaking, deregulation is a good thing, but not always. For it work the participants in the market have to know their stuff and in Ireland most home buyers don't know enough about houses to make proper judgements so it wouldn't be effective.

sydthebeat

Building codes do not just affect new houses...

New homes do not have to be fully accessible by wheelchair users.


Your information is misunderstood, so your argument is very flawed

Gumbo

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I can see where you are coming from but seat belts protect people from killing other people with their cavaders when they crash. Roads are shared spaces where there is rules for all to allow safe use. It is totally uncomparable. Building codes only affect new houses. If was so terrible it would be a law that effects all houses. Personally, I don't see any need for all new houses to be fully accessible to wheelchair users (although it should be encouraged). But I see a lot of sense for it to be incentivised, or to force developers to make a certain percent accessible.



My body my choice my house my choice. Generally speaking, deregulation is a good thing, but not always. For it work the participants in the market have to know their stuff and in Ireland most home buyers don't know enough about houses to make proper judgements so it wouldn't be effective.

I think you need to have a look at the regulations.
I feel you are outraged and ranting while not knowing the facts.

New houses are not fully wheel chair accessible. They are visitable.
Also, the regs effect older stock too once you start carrying out alterations to the house. For example, if you get new windows, you are brought into the current Part L requirements for that window. Also the openable area for fire escape or rescue is brought in. If you get a new boiler, carbon monoxide detection is now mandatory so slowly older housing will be upgraded but obviously never as good as a newly built house.

Deregulation will not lead to cheaper homes or construction costs. Most wheelchair requirements are in the gently sloped approach and level entry. This will not effect the price of the house should you decide not to put this in.

An_Toirpin

kceire wrote: »

I think you need to have a look at the regulations.
I feel you are outraged and ranting while not knowing the facts.

New houses are not fully wheel chair accessible. They are visitable.
Also, the regs affect older stock too once you start carrying out alterations to the house. For example, if you get new windows, you are brought into the current Part L requirements for that window. Also, the openable area for fire escape or rescue is brought in. If you get a new boiler, carbon monoxide detection is now mandatory so slowly older housing will be upgraded but obviously never as good as a newly built house.

Not many laws opt-in gradually over decades.



I am not outraged. I m not even against such regulations. I am simply exploring the pros and cons of such regulations and I find it bemusing how much faith people have in them.

kceire wrote: »

Deregulation will not lead to cheaper homes or construction costs. Most wheelchair requirements are in the gently sloped approach and level entry. This will not effect the price of the house should you decide not to put this in.

Of course, deregulation will reduce construction costs. It is basic arithmetic. Complex labour intensive processes take more time and labour is a major cost. Drop the BER system and you have no BER assessor fee. I favour housing construction regulation because it adds a lot and doesn't cost a lo

Gumbo

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Not many laws opt-in gradually over decades.



I am not outraged. I m not even against such regulations. I am simply exploring the pros and cons of such regulations and I find it bemusing how much faith people have in them.




Of course, deregulation will reduce construction costs. It is basic arithmetic. Complex labour intensive processes take more time and labour is a major cost. Drop the BER system and you have no BER assessor fee. I favour housing construction regulation because it adds a lot and doesn't cost a lo

BER cost is €130.
It’s a cheap solution to demonstrate absolute compliance with TGDL. I’m sure it would actually cost more for the consultant to manually confirm every cold bridge, check every detail and offer an opinion,on compliance.

Brontosaurus

Nothing I said was discriminatory, and I'm not the only one in this "heated debate".

Telling people to leave the country if they're not happy with a certain aspect of the country does not help your argument. Also I find that very hurtful and discriminatory as a minority and an immigrant myself. Please watch your offense speech.

Deregulation DOES drive costs down, that's a basic economic fact. Our economy is propped up by a housing bubble that is artificially kept intact. 1 in 5 TDs are landlords or are property investors. One of you had a hand in drafting these regulations. Most of those in charge are happy to have people stuck in social housing and unable to own their own property, as Varadkar's 2040 plan outlines.
Any of you want to declare vested interests for the sake of clarity?

If people were able to, sensibly, build what they wanted and where they wanted, within reason, there would be A: more homes available at lower prices for sale and for rent, and the market would be more competitive as you don't have the same TDs owning the majority of property...and B: more people would be able to build homes for themselves.

If your basic attitude is that people can't and should not be allowed to take care of themselves, and that you and you alone are benevolent and intelligent enough to know better than everyone else, then this is a futile discussion to have.

As for the whole wheelchair access thing. You can be as pedantic as you like and as do-gooder as like, the basic fact is that the premise goes against the notion of private property. It does not matter if I need hand rails and a chair lift installed or just have doors wide enough for a wheelchair. The fundamental issue is the same. I also fail to see how a requirement of having a gently sloped approach and level entry would help me or any hypothetical future person to live in that home should they need a wheelchair. Where I first heard about wheelchair access requirements, was on a thread where someone was claiming a log house can't pass that aspect of the regulations. If all you need is a gently sloping approach and level entry then there isn't an issue with compliance. If it is two story they will still need a chair lift of some kind, and the counters would have to be low enough for them, and they would need a special bathroom for them so the current regs aren't good enough. So what good does that regulation even do if your argument hinges on "because its a nice thing to do".

If you want to make the do-gooder argument then why only apply it people with mobility problems?

Anyway I've had my laugh, most people seem to be too dogmatically involved to even see the other side of the argument, I don't think any further discussion would be fruitful for anyone involved.

Peace.

Lumen

In case the original point of this thread has gotten a bit lost...

The OP was based on the reporting that "Dublin City Council set to allow families build log cabins in back gardens".

As I understand it from contributions to this thread, the reported proposal, if it were to have the intended effect of cheap garden accomodation, would seem to require:

a. Relaxing of aesthetic objections. Possible, as it's under council jurisdiction.
b. Regularising the currently exceptional permissions for detached anciliary family accomodation even in cases where extension to the main dwelling is possible. This also seems do-able.
c. Relaxing building regulations. Not a hope in hell. Aside from it not being in the council's powers, the council will not want to be responsible for another Carrickmines halting site situation in future.

Do I have that right?

So even if the council did (a) and (b), they effect without (c) would be that any such developments would cost 50k and upwards, and I just don't see why parents with 50k lying around wouldn't just give it to the kids as a deposit for an apartment, unless the real objective in the medium term is to kick out the kids and rent out these structures.

JustAThought

There are some log cabin homes and seomra for sale that are far less than the 45k touted here; I can easily see how someone with a big garden would spend 20k on having somewhere to put their daughter and (eg) grandchild that would be handy for babysitting and childminding: or allow them to live in the area and community they grew up in and not be isolated elswwhere. Ireland has has an unfortunate tradition of land being left in a will to one child with permission granted for their lifetime for another family member to live on it -at least with this they wont be living in a freezing caravan or mobile home but in a properly insulated dwelling that they might later be able to regroup their losses from and rent out. Several of my neighbours now have them ( all stealthily put up with no planning permission sought) and of course they are all using them for businesses. I wonder where the planning laws stand on this - or does it have to be for family habitation only?

rayjdav

There has to be at least a minimum building and quality requirement of constructed housing for people to live in? Where is the confusion?

If the Government started relaxing elements of the basic guidance, where does that leave us?

Do you ignore:
Part A: Structure. - Who do you sue when house falls down
Part B: Fire: Priory Hall??
Part C: Ground unstable and house infested with dampness
Part Sure get Johnny down the pub to build it. when it falls down will he fix it?
Part E: I dont want to hear you, nor you me, next door.
Part F: Fix-shut plastic windows, but sure I'll live with the bronchiolitis.
Part G: Sure outside tap/toilet will be grand
Part H: Dont need cause I go au-naturale. Refer to G above....
Part J: Be grand if I burn sticks in my open fire in my unventilated open-plan living/kitchen/bed/bathroom area.
Part K: Be grand if I put in vertical firemans pole as Im 20 years old and will still be grand when I'm 70
Part L: Bloody minefield but I have loads of $$$$ to heat this unventiled space
Part M: I'm never going to get sick or old. Fact.....

Once a precedence is set it is hard for a council to backtrack. They allow some uncontrolled development the floodgates open and when the s**t hits the fan for relaxing standards, the same people who fought for it will be outside Leinster house looking for the scalp of the Minister for the Environment for doing so. If you dont want to comply with one or all of the elements, you can apply to your Building Control officer for relaxation/dispensation from same but you need a very good logical reason..

There is no question to needing a resolution to the housing issues but we can't roll back to uncontrolled practices. Also, this still costs money so probability bank required for mortgage/loan. They will still require certification from an Arch/Eng and they cannot issue an unqualified cert for it as it leaves their insurance open when/if things go pear shaped.

Lumen

JustAThought wrote: »

There are some log cabin homes and seomra for sale that are far less than the 45k touted here

Not that comply with building regulations. Now it may be that the manufacturers aren't bothering to comply with building regulations because their customers wouldn't get planning anyway, and that if the planning regs are relaxed then new regs-compliant "tiny homes" would be developed, but I haven't seen anyone making that case.

JustAThought wrote: »

I can easily see how someone with a big garden would spend 20k on having somewhere to put their daughter and (eg) grandchild that would be handy for babysitting and childminding...at least with this they wont be living in a freezing caravan or mobile home but in a properly insulated dwelling

Living in a caravan where? The only people living in caravans with the permission of the authorities are travellers. Are you suggesting that if people don't get their log cabins they're going to send their kids off to join the travelling community?

An_Toirpin

Lumen wrote: »

So even if the council did (a) and (b), they effect without (c) would be that any such developments would cost 50k and upwards, and I just don't see why parents with 50k lying around wouldn't just give it to the kids as a deposit for an apartment, unless the real objective in the medium term is to kick out the kids and rent out these structures.

Not everyone parents has 50k to offer. It may be their own 50k. Also some banks don't like the despoit coming from a buyer's parents. Sends the wrong message.

An_Toirpin

rayjdav wrote: »

There has to be at least a minimum building and quality requirement of constructed housing for people to live in? Where is the confusion?

If the Government started relaxing elements of the basic guidance, where does that leave us?

Do you ignore:
Part A: Structure. - Who do you sue when house falls down
Part B: Fire: Priory Hall??
Part C: Ground unstable and house infested with dampness
Part Sure get Johnny down the pub to build it. when it falls down will he fix it?
Part E: I dont want to hear you, nor you me, next door.
Part F: Fix-shut plastic windows, but sure I'll live with the bronchiolitis.
Part G: Sure outside tap/toilet will be grand
Part H: Dont need cause I go au-naturale. Refer to G above....
Part J: Be grand if I burn sticks in my open fire in my unventilated open-plan living/kitchen/bed/bathroom area.
Part K: Be grand if I put in vertical firemans pole as Im 20 years old and will still be grand when I'm 70
Part L: Bloody minefield but I have loads of $$$$ to heat this unventiled space
Part M: I'm never going to get sick or old. Fact.....

Once a precedence is set it is hard for a council to backtrack. They allow some uncontrolled development the floodgates open and when the s**t hits the fan for relaxing standards, the same people who fought for it will be outside Leinster house looking for the scalp of the Minister for the Environment for doing so. If you dont want to comply with one or all of the elements, you can apply to your Building Control officer for relaxation/dispensation from same but you need a very good logical reason..

This woeful hyperbole shows how little faith our statist progressives have in humanity.

Gumbo

An_Toirpin wrote: »

This woeful hyperbole shows how little faith our statist progressives have in humanity.

The hyperbole that see getting constructed on a daily basis shows that without regulation, hyperbole construction standards will be widespread.

Lumen

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Not everyone parents has 50k to offer. It may be their own 50k. Also some banks don't like the despoit coming from a buyer's parents. Sends the wrong message.

OK, but if you were in your mid-twenties with 50k in your bank account, would you blow it on a garden room in the parents' back garden? I wouldn't, it'd be complete madness.

That's why in my mind this proposal is ill-considered. Without massively relaxed building regulations (which is highly unlikely, Ireland's regs are just the same as everywhere else, see for instance this video on US building codes and emphasis on air tightness and vapour control, same 50pa blower door tests since 2009) there is no magic trick to dramatically cheaper construction.

And if the price point remains 50k, it won't help the people getting screwed by the housing shortage who don't have 5k to spare, let alone 50k.

Brontosaurus

An_Toirpin wrote: »

This woeful hyperbole shows how little faith our statist progressives have in humanity.

People in Ireland were dying in their 100s without these building regs don't you know?

My god, how did the American and Canadian pioneers manage to live in glorified sheds without burning the place down?

sydthebeat

Brontosaurus wrote: »

People in Ireland were dying in their 100s without these building regs don't you know?

My god, how did the American and Canadian pioneers manage to live in glorified sheds without burning the place down?

Wow
You want to go back to a time where the average life expectancy was less than 40 years of age??

As I said before, some people need to be protected from themselves

Lumen

Brontosaurus wrote: »

People in Ireland were dying in their 100s without these building regs don't you know?

My god, how did the American and Canadian pioneers manage to live in glorified sheds without burning the place down?

You're quoting the wrong person, but...

Those "glorified sheds" would have been built with solid wood construction. Check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairbanks_House_(Dedham,_Massachusetts)

This style of construction still performs very well and is durable.

This video describes a Swiss company which uses solid wood (and high performance membranes) to give modern levels of comfort and energy efficiency while being 90 minute fire rated.

It is, however, 50% more expensive than conventional construction and absolutely nothing like your average "log cabin".

You can save money by using wood fibre insulation, but it's still much more expensive than conventional foam insulation.

Brontosaurus

sydthebeat wrote: »

Wow
You want to up back to a time where the average life expectancy was less than 40 years of age??

As I said before, some people need to be protected from themselves

Did your grandparents die at age 40?

Brontosaurus

Lumen wrote: »

You're quoting the wrong person, but...

Those "glorified sheds" would have been built with solid wood construction. Check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairbanks_House_(Dedham,_Massachusetts)

This style of construction still performs very well and is durable.

This video describes a Swiss company which uses solid wood (and high performance membranes) to give modern levels of comfort and energy efficiency while being 90 minute fire rated.

It is, however, 50% more expensive than conventional construction and absolutely nothing like your average "log cabin".

You can save money by using wood fibre insulation, but it's still much more expensive than conventional foam insulation.

And what is my average log cabin? How do you know what form of construction I am referring to? I'm not allowed to share links, but if you actually go and check out some of these log houses in person you couldn't call them garden sheds. And they are much cheaper than conventional builds.

Lumen

Brontosaurus wrote: »

And what is my average log cabin? How do you know what form of construction I am referring to? I'm not allowed to share links, but if you actually go and check out some of these log houses in person you couldn't call them garden sheds. And they are much cheaper than conventional builds.

They are cheaper than conventional builds because they don't perform as well. For instance, what is the fire rating? What is the air tightness ?

sydthebeat

Brontosaurus wrote: »

Did your grandparents die at age 40?

My grandparents were not American pioneers

Gumbo

Brontosaurus wrote: »

And what is my average log cabin? How do you know what form of construction I am referring to? I'm not allowed to share links, but if you actually go and check out some of these log houses in person you couldn't call them garden sheds. And they are much cheaper than conventional builds.

Ask the log cabin provider to give you a cert or opinion of compliance with technical guidance document part b (Fire Safety). I’ll ignore every other Building Regulation for now.

If they provide that cert I’ll drop my stance on these glorified sheds.

Brontosaurus

kceire wrote: »

Ask the log cabin provider to give you a cert or opinion of compliance with technical guidance document part b (Fire Safety). I’ll ignore every other Building Regulation for now.

If they provide that cert I’ll drop my stance on these glorified sheds.

Except they said they do comply with fire safety. They could be lying I guess, but the fact that certain companies have had houses built with planning permission, I would assume they past any fire safety requirements. Maybe you should read up on log houses and their susceptibility to fire.You can also email these companies yourself.

Have you ever gone camping and tried to start a fire with wood and logs? You'll know that it is impossible to get a large log or beam burning without kindling, and you have to start small. So the only way to get a log house to burn to the ground would burn down a conventional home anyway unless it is just a concrete block. You could douse the place in gasoline, but I'd wager any other house would also burn down if you did that.

I frankly couldn't care what your stance is on log houses, you clearly haven't even bothered to look into this and just have an unsubstantiated nation of what they are like to call them garden sheds. I'm not sure what you're even basing this perception on. What are the similarities between them? That they are both made out of wood? Early American houses (many still standing after 100+ years) were built much the same way,with interlocking cuts of logs and planks, with some using timber framing as well. Then there are homes made from interlocking logs. A garden shed is a bunch of planks nailed together onto a very basic and flimsy frame, with little to no joinery.

Brontosaurus

sydthebeat wrote: »

My grandparents were not American pioneers

Did the Americans or Canadians living in log houses die due to living in log houses, or was it the lack of modern medicine, enough food, plumbing etc?

That would be a very unique thesis to propose to a university "How log houses and log cabins lowered the life expectancy of people throughout history".

sydthebeat

Brontosaurus wrote: »

Did the Americans or Canadians living in log houses die due to living in log houses, or was it the lack of modern medicine, enough food, plumbing etc?

That would be a very unique thesis to propose to a university "How log houses and log cabins lowered the life expectancy of people throughout history".

Hummmmm so they didnt have modernity, but now that we do, you think the standards they lived by is acceptable and applicable to us now??

Very very strange logic.

I wonder were their log homes signed off by a reci electrician?

Lumen

Brontosaurus wrote: »

Except they said they do comply with fire safety. They could be lying I guess, but the fact that certain companies have had houses built with planning permission, I would assume they past any fire safety requirements.

Can you link to the planning permision documents for any of these houses?

The two examples given on the other thread turned out to be non-compliant due to not meeting exterior finish conditions.

Brontosaurus

sydthebeat wrote: »

Hummmmm so they didnt have modernity, but now that we do, you think the standards they lived by is acceptable and applicable to us now??

Very very strange logic.

I wonder were their log homes signed off by a reci electrician?

Except there is nothing wrong with a log house, at all. They can be fitted with any and all modern amenities and comforts. What can you not have in a log house? You do know you can have electricity in a shed right?

Very perverse logic here. All I see is goal posts constantly being shifted.

The houses aren't what resulted in people not living past 40, on average. That's beyond a ridiculous statement. If you don't want to live in such a home that's fine, no one is forcing you to.

Brontosaurus

Lumen wrote: »

Can you link to the planning permision documents for any of these houses?

The two examples given on the other thread turned out to be non-compliant due to not meeting exterior finish conditions.

So are you telling me these houses are non compliant just because of the finish? That's an aesthetic issue the neighbors had, which was rectified. So are those two houses standing there illegally now?

The case of the house in Wicklow was due to neighbor complaints.

So we figured out that fire safety and wheelchair access aren't issues now. So is it just the surface finish now or there any other straws to grasp at?

If these log homes are so flammable and dangerous, how come the county council didn't order this man to demolish it?

BryanF

some posts deleted. Thread closed pending review.