
Originally Posted by
Ixion
For around half a century (ever since they stopped using heart totara for framing) EVERYBODY who ever picked up a hammer knew you didn't use untreated pinus radiata for permanent work.
Then some brain dead rooster in Wellington comes out and says "Oh, it's OK, all good to use untreated". Completely coincidental that a certain huge corporation made millions as a result of that decision of course. And EVERYBODY who ever picked up a hammer knew that it would inevitably end in tears. Just a matter of time. The chippies building those houses with untreated knew they would rot. Not their decision, and nobody would listen to them
Every wooden framed house ever built leaks. Sooner or later. Timber needs to be rot resistant for as long as it take to dry out. Pretending that you can use untreated pinus and seal the building so tight that it never leaks is just bullshit.
Got a leaky house? Blame an unholy alliance between that certain corporation and the Greens.
And I am sure the door would not have been 30cm lower than standard. You'd have to be a dwarf to get through it. Maybe 3 cm , 30mm ?
+1 for someone who appears to actually know something about the real issues.
Quite correct, they always did and will leak. The issue is not that they leak... the real issue is the damage caused by (in most cases, very minor) leaks and the cost to fix them. That's where untreated timber comes into play... fixing the leak doesn't fix the decayed or at risk timber. The price of "stopping the leaks" is a very small part of the cost. Approx 75% to 90% of the cost of the repairs is purely down to the remediation of the decayed/untreated framing.
It ain't fair to blame designers, developers, builders or building consent authorities for the costs associated with down grading the durability of timber framing. That blame lays squarely with the likes of CCH and other industry players for manipulating the market into thinking that untreated timber was the way to go (kindly sponsoring their employees to provide their services to the standards association to get it mandated) together with the BIA and standards association (Govt) for allowing (mandating) that it was acceptable to use untreated framing.
Wankers
Cladding failures are to be (and should be) expected. If the structural materials met the durability requirements mandated in NZBC B2 New Zealanders wouldn't know what the fuck "Leaky Building Syndrome" was.
Blame the government for 80% of the cost. That is where the blame lies. It is morally reprehensible that they indemnified the building industry authority (BIA) and BRANZ and then encourage a litigious process that makes victims out of everyone (even a concrete placer that pours a concrete drive where a home owner tells him to put it, gets shafted for $50,000.00) Where is the justice in that??? Fuck them
Political correctness: a doctrine which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd from the clean end.
Bookmarks