How about saying sorry for what you did Nick?
A new report for the Auckland City Council on the health impacts of leaky buildings has been released. The report was prepared by Nick Wilson, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Julian Crane, Kristin Wickens, and Ralph Chapman under the auspices of Otago Uni.
They gave an estimate of $474m of the health costs of leaky houses (using a 5% discount rate over 10 years). There is evidence of a causative link between mould caused by leaks and asthma, wheezes, coughs and various other respiratory symptoms and mental health conditions. This is a very conservative estimate.
The Greens have been talking about the link between mould, leaky houses and indoor air quality and precisely these issues for some years so it’s good to see this come into the light of day.
Leaky houses is one of the leftovers from the New Right revolution of the ’80s and ’90s when the ideologues in Labour and National decided that the building industry did not need regulation and that investing in the training of apprentices was wasteful. The 1991 Building Act was prepared by the Rogernomes in Labour and implemented by the Ruthophiles in National. It took a laissez faire approach to building regulation. The entirely predictable outcome was that building standards dropped and an awful lot of rubbish was built that has had to be rebuilt or simply bulldozed. Many people still live in damp and mouldy houses as a result - and it makes them ill.
To give Labour their due, the current Government recognised that leaving the building industry to the self-regulation of a bunch of cowboys wasn’t such a good idea and they moved to a more regulated environment with the new Building Act of 2004. The Greens voted to get this new Act through Parliament because while the new Building Act is far from perfect, and at times is possibly overly prescriptive, it is a million times better than the old one. (And we managed to get various provisions in the new act around sustainability and waste, though the extent to which these make it into the Building Code is another story.)
Predictably National opposed the new Building Act because it was too regulatory. But incredibly Nick Smith put out a release today blaming Labour for the problem of leaky houses.
Nick, you should say sorry for what your party did. You should apologise to every person living in a leaky house. Sure the shonky developers and builders may have put the crap up, but it was you and your party Nick that created the monster by leaving the regulation of the building industry to the cowboy developers (maybe they gave campaign donations). Everyone living in a leaky house should know that it was the National Party that passed the legislation that created the leaky houses problem and then voted against the new Building Act designed to clean up the mess.
January 10th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Russel,
Has anybody estimated the health costs of the uninsulated houses built with generous state assistance during the 50s and 60s? I presume the ones built in foggy areas will also have problems with mould and damp as well as being difficult to heat to a healthy temperature. Those figures might give the government the insentive it needs to offer tax rebates for installing insulation since electricity shortages and global warming don’t seem to have motivated them. Either Carter or Ford introduced rebates for retrofitting insulation to older homes in the USA, and that would have been in response to one of the two oil shocks in the 70s. Makes it a bit hard for Helen to take a holier than thou attitude to Bush when the Yanks are decades ahead of us.
January 10th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
having carpet in your house has an effect on your breathing aswel, no carpet no microbes floating around.
has anyone studied the industry? if you look at building styles of 40yrs ago and compare it to todays methods i wonder what you would find? A house life expectancy of 40 yrs ago has a far longer lifespan than what is being built today.
almost like the way we chop and change our cars every 3 years, just like kiln dried treated wood being used now instead of non-treated as they did in the 90’s which dose’nt actually protect it much at all, it’s still porous as hell.
what i’ve noticed is the cheaper and lighter it is the faster we can put it up,
the faster i can build it the faster i get my money, if i pump out a million of them in half the time i get more money, I call it “The Now Attitude”
has anyone done a dimming study here? if one of you illustrious persons could point this dimwit in the right direction i would much appreciate it.
Oh and beware of building cosmetics employed these days they are becoming harder to spot for the average buyer
January 10th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Kevyn- I believe there is a program to upgrade insulation in state houses to decent levels- and there is a similar program paying 50% of the cost for private landlords. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be enough incentive. Time for the stick approach IMHO. Licenses for landlords would be a reasonable idea- prove that your property is suitable for tenants before you can let it.
Having worked in the industry in one capacity, I can safely say that the leaky homes crisis was at least partially caused by the lack of skilled builders out there. It is possible to build Mediterranean-style buildings in NZ without them leaking, but not if the builders have never had training or been through apprenticeships. The gutting of the inspection regime also led to massive abuse and corruption- the “free market” at work.
Building standards have increased in the last decade, there is now a requirement for the outer cladding to be mounted on batons if I remember correctly, to allow water to drain. A pity that double-glazing couldn’t be made compulsory 10 years ago… Condensation sucks!
January 10th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
uk_kiwi,
Seriously, take your idea one step further. Make it illegal to sell, lease or rent any building that doesn’t comply with current building insulation standards. Labour should have done that as an emergency measure during the last dry winter power crises. Then they could have made the emergency measure permanent. As the third Labour government did with the emergency reduction in the open road speed limit.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Rsidents comment on Christchurch’s Ugly infill housing
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/Archived/1997/ResidentsSurvey/List38.asp
Oh Well that’s progress (or as an economist stated in the Press: the South Islands reaching 1 million was a “great achievement”).
January 10th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
there were and still is alot of skilled builders out there it just depends on how big your pockets are.
what they should do is give the inspectors cams with say 250gig 1.8 hdds in them so they can video the inspections with the site foreman and main contractor and sub-contractor(optional) on avi record, nohing worse than something that someone has over you and is irrefuteable in court, chuck it in a server taggd and ready to go, CCTV Pommy style!
the style of housing construction during the 90’s was definitely med in looks only, but that’s where it stops, styrene pillars and styrene external frames, james hardy board and very bad flashing design, once the water got in that was it eaten from inside out.
Make the inspector the most feared man in town because it starts with him and promote more women on construction management teams, they don’t have danglies so they get on with the job no posturing.
would anyone know if our government has done a assessment on our pollution reduction and the affects of dimming here? Do we have dimming here? Are we outside the pollution reflective cloud zone or are covered by australias output if they have one at all, if it all goes to crap and the northern hemisphere turns to a raging desert what will become dof the south pacific? will we be 5 islands instead of 2? wracked by superhurricanes or just go under like the titanic? it’s a wait and see game as no model is exact enoughto give accurate answers to a problem that’s global not local.
or will we be fried aswel? not too bright on how to use the net would appreciate a few links as you guys are very knowledgeable people
January 10th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
amon
Try clicking on this link, Google’s always a good place to start looking for things on the net
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=dimming&btnG=Google+Search&meta =
January 10th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Every street in the country should have site page setup like that jh it’ll put the real estate industry on it’s head as people would start using it to find out for themselves about an area Hehe
January 11th, 2008 at 8:45 am
It’s hard to tell without seeing the infill in question, but some of that could be just plain NIMBYism and conservatism. Our cities need more infill, not less, though in order for it to help reverse the car-dependence that has resulted from decades of low-density sprawl, it needs to be concentrated around suburban centres rather than allowed to happen randomly.
High quality, attractive medium-density infill is possible, but an unregulated market doesn’t tend to deliver it. We need both appropriate regulations and some exemplary developments that demonstrate how to build housing that is well-insulated (and party walls make townhouses easier to insulate than stand-alone houses), weathertight and well-designed. Architectural groups built “demonstration houses” and the like back in the 50s, but now the challenge is to show how to build well at moderate densities.
January 11th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I see the new year has not had an effect on you Russell, as usual you take an anti National stance on every issue.
Given that you will soon be in the house do you not think it would be wise to distance yourself from this lame duck government?
January 11th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Big Bro - Just cause Russell,or anyone else for that matter, takes an anti National stance doesn’t meant that they support Labour. Politics is diverse and there is more than two perspectives.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:49 am
The current improved insulation standards are still not adequate.
The core problem is that very few people actually understand that poor insulation standards means homes that are too cold which leads directly to poorer health which leads directly to workers off work which leads directly to company profits, and to increased health spending, and thus increased cost to business. Lack of insulation means everyone loses, whatever their political affiliation or position in the scheme of things. There is absolutely no upside.
And, as you’ll recall, when (finally) some government (it happened to be Helen’s, but I don’t think thats important to the point) did something (but not enough) about woeful insulation standards the best the news media could manage was something like “government regs add 5K to house cost”…
Morons.
I’ve got a house with 1980s standards insulation, so a little better than nothing, but I’m stuck with it, as the cost to upgrade it to something sensible would be horrendous; it would have cost a tiny amount to do insulation right when the house was just a frame.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:21 am
“Lack of insulation means everyone loses” - huh?, I dont see LPG/Electricity vendors complaining. The housing stock that is not insulated (adequetly if at all) is a historical anomoly and largely a product of temperate climate and cheap/poluting energy. While this needs to be given attention it doent follow that the ‘investment’ has to be subsidised, it is already factored into buying decisions. Housing with ‘poor comfort levels economics’ is a component in the market matrix and is taken careof as the stock ages. However I take a certain exception to the idea that there a ‘high’ correlate to poor health in these houses. There are many other factors other than insulation that contributes this for which there is an equally arguable position that resourcing should be allocated… further, there is an equally arguable position that heavliy insulated houses produces a greater differential between ‘expected inside temperature’ and what is a healty ambient difference with plenty of fresh air. Houses that are locked down thermally are germ ‘residences’. There is a cross over. I was raised in a perfectly functional Invercargill weatherboard house with permanent ‘gap’ maintained at the top of the windows that while making the room cooler, it made it drier and INHO healthier as one wore clothing that better protected one when one went outside (ie one spent more time outside too). We have become overtly socialised to being protected from our environment when we are the better for being somewhat immersed in it… the power/fuel/health savings from the latter ‘behavours’ are environmentally desirable too.
Where people live ‘in the lounge’ most of the time, there is the opportunity to target ‘heat loss’ economically.. some EXTRA thick curtains and one bag of batts addresses 70% of the problem. (or some comparable materials used accordingly)
I put two peices of 10mm lexan (polycarbonate) over two south facing windows. (cost = $48) with selftapping screws and burred them. The temp difference to the rear section of the house was noticable almost immediatly, and it is now also more secure from burglary (got a very big axe! you’d be better coming through the wall~) _ I bet it isnt ‘building standard’ but is sure was effective and the money saved, comfort achieved etc… can go into other areas I identify as my next priority, in this case double glazing my lounge for sound [and thermal] isolation .
As the Norse often say, there is no such thing as bad weather, only poor clothing choices. A wollen jersey and an overcoat behind the kitchen door is insulating your ‘health and house’ - I don’t see that the ‘guardian’ state can protect people from themselves any better than that.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Hello uk-kiwi
You mentoned the EECA subsidy for private landlords to put in insulation. There is one drawback, in that it only applies if the tenants have Community Service cards, which many private tenants won’t necessarily have. Furthermore, landlords are forbidden from putting up the rent for at least 6 months after getting the subsidy.
I don’t see many landlords throwing out exisitng tenants to get poorer tenants, simply to get a subsidy.
Secondly, many landlords are now negatively geared or run a company as a tax loss, the REST of the money to put in insulation still has to come from somewhere.
Thirdly, putting insulation in walls at least, means ripping out the interior walls and then redoing them..since many tenants don’t want to live in a building site, (and I think the landlord may be asked to compensate them) then the work can only get done when the house is untenanted..which means money and more time taken/lost… then add in the trying to get a builder who is free.
The larger problem is that the landlord doesn’t directly gain from putting in something that (as yet) is un-eccessary. You could argue that they get it back when they sell, but that could be years away, and also as capital improvements, they will end up being reflected in increased rates as well. The tenant gets the benefit of lower power bills and better health, but their rent will go up to get back the landlord’s investment.
I don’t mention these things as excuses for landlords to rent slums, (I have lived in my fair share of uninsulated wooden boxes in winter) but as always with government subsidies etc, things are not quite as obvious or simple as they seem.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
It is possible to use some of the building foams to infill existing walls. It isn’t all that cheap but it does not involve yanking the walls out.
IMHO yanking the walls out is better because you get to see and clean out whatever other junk and mold may have gotten in, and the foam installer has to be pretty good at judging the rate of application to avoid foam that swells up a little TOO much for the wall and lifts it off the frame anyhow. Just my preference… I tend to “be” a construction site, and the prospect of replacing 5 layers of seriously AWFUL wallpaper (what IS it with this culture anyway?) is attractive.
Blair — As to the “everyone loses”… I take your point in the sense that some currently existing individuals may profit at the expense of all future generations but their children will suffer the resulting warming/shortages just as the rest of our offspring do. Remember, Greens don’t just include themselves, but future generations in their considerations.
I take your meaning with respect to the ventilation and humidity, but the approach you advocate is not efficient unless the internal temperature is maintained at a very low level… or in summer at quite high levels… and the absence of flyscreens (and the “great indoor-outdoor flow” advertised in all the real estate blurbs) combine to create additional health risks.
Dunno about you… but I have 5 people in my house and we do not “live in the lounge” all winter. I too have jury-rigged external and internal double glazing on the southern exposures of my rental. I have done what I can, but the ceiling insulation is inadequate, the underfloor insulation non-existent and I have no confidence that there is anything insulating the walls but dead mice.
BJ
January 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
jingyang: I was unaware of that EECA requirement, however most of the poor/disabled/elderly have community services cards- this is where you will get the most bang for your buck as they have the worst accomodation and the worst health outcomes ($$$). It should be made compulsory for these landlords to provide insulated/habitable properties.
In my opinion, if landlords cannot afford to provide a high quality rental, they should not be in the game. If they have to sell as a result, well great, helps with housing affordability. Why should they get a tax writeoff to provide run-down unhealthy properties to those who have NO option? It’s almost Dickensian!
EECA could expand this program to all rental accomodation, for sure. I know of several people who have even offered to help install insulation in their own freezing rentals, yet the landlord will not even consider it- heaven forbid spending a cent more than they absolutely have to!
January 11th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Blair - poorly insulated housing is not just an historical anomaly, as you’ve claimed. It’s a serious and widespread problem right up into the most expensive homes. There are mountains of research, world leading, peer reviewed science done in NZ about the problem and the costs to society.
There is debate about widening the EECA programme for all rental housing, but the main thrust is to get the poorer folk sorted out first. Remember that landlords are in it for a profit, even if they’re just a Mum and Pop operation saving for their retirement. The real solution is to make a certain level of insulation mandatory if you are going to rent your property. However, if the govt just mandated it, there would be a big mess of non-compliant homes and nowhere near enough contractors to fix it all.
The current EECA programmes are spread across all the various sectors of society except the really rich, and help financially just enough to make it sensible to do the insulation retrofit. How much more should government interfere for the moment? When the majority of the housing stock is up to scratch, then it might be sensible to insist through regulation that all rental properties must meet the latest code.
The Property Investor’s Federation has woken up to the fact that tenants stay longer in a well insulated house, reducing turnover and empty weeks. This means more money for the owner. They support the programmes for rental properties, and are willing to talk about how and when the govt should make it mandatory for everyone to insulate. They know it adds capital value to their investments. Of course they would like to see the programmes expanded, but they also realise that the govt is a big landlord itself and has to get it’s own house(s) in order first with the money it has. However, the Federation does not represent the majority of kiwi landlords. Unfortunately its going to take a while, perhaps about 20 years all up, to get kiwi houses into shape. It’s still better than doing nothing!
January 11th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Blair - I didn’t suggest any subsidy, but now you come to mention it, one could make a financial case for it; I have opined before that there is a real disconnect between the government (actually, all governments) willing to raise money that is for the benefit of utility shareholders (SOE or real), but not being willing to do the same to save massive investment.
Frog’s first paragraph adequately dismisses the rest of your first para.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
bjchip Says:
January 11th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
It is possible to use some of the building foams to infill existing walls. It isn’t all that cheap but it does not involve yanking the walls out.
………………………..
I would be careful as (I read that) if you don’t have building papers condensation will come through the paint from the warmer side(?) and condense in the wall in gaps between the foam, so you can get rotting of internal timber.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
The real (and only) issue here is that the state has got involved in what is a strictly private matter between builder and buyer, such that ratepayers and taxpayers who have absolutely nothing to do with the issue now find themselves liable for hundreds of millions of dollars of reparation because councils got involved (totally unecessarily) in certifying private developments.
It’s absolutely nothing to do with the rest of us if people buy a rubbish house! It’s like making us liable if other people buy a dodgy vehicle!
The solution is for *less* state involvement, not more.
It’s for purchasers to assure themselves that what is being built is of a decent standard, and they can do this by going to long-established and reputable firms that will be around in ten years’ time to be sued if there are any problems. There is absolutely no reason for everyone else to be made liable for other people’s private transactions.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Why does the law (apparently ) allow shoddy builders to walk out of their skin and continue trading (or has anyone managed to sue any of these builders?
I take it you see a role for government in town planning Mouldwarp?
January 12th, 2008 at 1:28 am
jh,
Condensation wont be a problem if bj uses a cavity wall insulating foam rather than just a gap filling product.
I don’t know if either of these products are available in NZ but the tech specs detail their resistance to the condensation problem.
http://www.insulfoamsolutions.com.au/Pages%20Homeowners/Overview.html
http://www.tigerfoam.com/datasheets.php
January 12th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Mouldwarp
The builders fold their tents every 3 years and re-establish their businesses as a matter of course. It is standard practice here. They can’t (apparently) be touched. Moreover, after screwing people with a pile of sticks that is optimistically worth more as firewood than as a house, they go BK and they’re gone. That IS the recourse that people have… stuff all.
That said, the manner in which the government has regulated and continues to behave, is perhaps even worse than you are worried about. The new law requires EVERYONE who builds or significantly modifies a house to have a certified “Builder” just to make a submission to the council. Effectively granting monopoly power to people who have already proven their greed.
Wow! What’s to like?
The problem with the Leaky Homes is that so many builders did the SAME bad thing at the same time that there isn’t any way to hold them responsible. They’ve actually done enough damage to be bankrupt quite quickly if someone managed to hold them accountable.
That leaves councils holding the bag because their inspectors signed off on the firewood.
In the US, and this works well, the inspector for the buyer is paid for BY the buyer and that person is an independent licensed building inspector. He/She basically tells the buyer ALL the problems the house may have. That’s his job, and he isn’t paid by council. Pure private enterprise. He works for the buyer and the bank and he’s damned good at it cause stuff he misses comes back to get him. The seller has his own inspector go through the house in self-defense.
Building Permits on new construction and major changes however, are much the same everywhere. The folks who build have a lot more reliance on their own inspections than on the council or the state. They know that if they put up garbage the buyer’s inspector will catch ‘em and there won’t BE a sale.
There are (I think) more restrictions on their changing their business identities to escape liabilities too. Having only bought and sold one house I reckon THAT part was working OK. The mortgage industry fell into a black hole though.
respectfully
BJ
January 12th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
- “The builders fold their tents every 3 years and re-establish their businesses as a matter of course. ”
All this means - as you illustrated - is that there is a market for a mutually agreed upon third-party inspection process before the buyer hands over the money; plus third-party insurance for the long term.
- “That leaves councils holding the bag because their inspectors signed off on the firewood.”
Quite.
There is no reason for councils to get involved at all, any more than they should inspect and assume liability for a dodgy car that someone buys. What is the incentive for the buyer to have the property properly inspected if he knows that the poor ratepayers of the parish have unwittingly had this liability forced on them?
Yet Russel’s knee-jerk instinct is - wouldn’t you know it - for *more* involvement from the state in what should be completely private transactions between the buyer, the mortgage provider and the builder.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Hang on. Didnt the Greens push for the use of untreated timber? I understand that this has contributed to the problem.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Mouldwarp
This is I think… a “red letter day” of some sort. We agree on something. Not everything mind, but government regulations, inspections and interference in the building industry are all extremely bad here.
As to what regulations are appropriate… not what we have. There needs to be a culture shift to get the banks involved (after all they are the ones who ACTUALLY own the houses) in ensuring that they aren’t buying cr@p.
Not sure why they are so disinterested, but the reason it worked in the US is that you can’t get a loan without an inspection. The bank will not buy cr@p.
I think it is a carryover from the way they did things in Britain?
Anyway… we agree. The forum will probably explode.
Roman… I have no idea what and when the greens pushed for back when I was in the USA. There isn’t any policy on this that I am aware of, and nothing I have seen relating to it. I don’t think it’s relevant to the housing issues and council overreach and overreactions of this year in any case.
However, if someone did espouse untreated lumber in building houses in this climate they’d be a fool. Green, Yellow, Pink or Purple, they’d still be a fool.
respectfully
BJ
July 18th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I am a landlord of freezing (ex state) houses, I’ve lived in them. I’m a (not yet accredited) home energy inspector for the (not yet in existence) ECCA HERS (home energy rating scheme). I’m a very experienced DIY builder, probably better than many tradesmen.
I can tell you that pulling the Gib out of a house to retro-insulate will never do the job properly. To achieve the best outcome you must remove the exterior cladding, fix the plumbing, the wiring, put in batts, house wrap (this is vital as most early houses failed to have building paper- Why?), cavity, re-clad, correct flashings, throw away aluminium joinery, hopefully double glaze, draftproof AND ensure correct ventilation.
Now this sounds a lot but the state could be investing in this superior upgrade of the public building stock.
While they are at it remove all downlights from ceilings and install ‘A’ grademains-pressure heat pump water heating and/or solar. Low flow showers, toilets etc
Insulated foil under floor. Ceilings to at least R5
This would really up the ante for private landlords to do something. Now to help them do something you need to make these essential upgrades directly tax deductible rather than capitalised as they are at present.
The current ’subsidy’ is only available if the insulation is installed by a registered installer, that cost alone is probably more than the subsidy is worth with a good lashing of bureaucrappy thrown in. Better to throw the subsidy directly at the insulation products themselves, the ones that do the job properly that is.
Get the HERS rating system running to identify the good, the bad and the ugly.
Lets stop talking about it and get on with it.
It’s perfect for The Greens it’s socialist , capitalist and environmentalist all rolled into one.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:26 am
samiam, Brilliant, finally someone speaking from experience filling in the practical bits the policy wonks skip over.
One question. If the house needs repiling would it be cost effective to get the house removalists in to shift it onto a concrete slab, with the best orientation to the sun? Or only if you can afford and want to infill?
July 19th, 2008 at 9:03 am
If it needs repiling?
There’s another question for the old timers (along with why no building paper?) Why why why did you old geezers build your wooden floored houses on such short piles? Did you enjoy grovelling in claustrophobic hell?
I digress.
Repiling should be done to a minimum underfloor height of 900mm. Now I know many old houses had some concrete pads for fireplaces, steps etc which is a problem I’ll admit.
Re-orienting to the sun is a tricky call too, but desirable where possible.
Then proper underfloor insulation can be correctly installed and vapour barriers laid on the ground. Kiwi health would improve immediately.
The taxpayer could be spending money on this instead of wasting it on ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-the-cliff healthcare (health-patchup in fact) and destroying our landscape building power plants to heat/cool/dehumidify etc the grotty housing stock we presently run.
Apprentices could learn how to build properly to a standard of finish instead of a timeline or budget.
Th
July 19th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Why do you throw away aluminium joinery?
Also what sort of test equipment do you use? How much does an infrared camera cost?
…………………..
An interesting angle to the leaky building thing is markets v hands on. On Bruce Shepards blog (Shareholders Assn guy) some are blaming bureaucrats….. ie people should be responsible for their own risk; here Frog is blaming Rogernomics. The hard work (analysis) is skipped over for the pleasure of self expression.
http://stuff.co.nz//blogs/stirringthepot/2008/07/16/leaky-buildings-an d-lawyers/
A question for the Greens: where were they positioned in relation to the leaky building issue? My guess is noticeably pushing other issues (as I can’t recall much “Green” involvement)?
July 19th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Why do you throw away aluminium joinery?
Because the ‘frame fraction’ of a typical single glazed aluminium window is around 5-10%. The heat loss from that 5-10% is around 30% of the total system performance! Inevitably heat loss out = cold in=condensation. That condensation is occurring right next to the framing, just where you don’t want it. Ironically double glazing makes that % worse.
So you have the situation of a highly conductive metal that costs a fortune of embodied energy to make (ever heard of Tiwai pt smelter using 15% of our electrickery) which will continue to cost $$ to heat for it’s entire life and contributes to the demise of the framing via condensation!
Gee, great product!
The aluminium industry has tried to make ‘mutton dressed up as lamb’ by incorporating thermal breaks and internal drainage sytems etc. Have you ever priced up that stuff? Scary and it’s still a dog.
“what sort of test equipment do you use?”
My finger, just touch any alu window frame….
Need more empirical data? BRANZ, ECCA, ABSA might have it.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Oh and I forgot, Alu profiles have tended to have far far to little external reveal, or overlap, across the external cladding thus placing too much reliance on the flashing systems (or lack thereof) to keep the water out of the hole in the wall.
They did this to be cheaper.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
good stuff..samiam..
thanks..
why don’t you open a website addressing all you know on this subject..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
“..However, if someone did espouse untreated lumber in building houses in this climate they’d be a fool. Green, Yellow, Pink or Purple, they’d still be a fool..”
step up..!..green..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 19th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Too busy fighting DOC phil, see my other topic post, too NOT busy waiting for THE SYSTEM to spit out a workable set of rules/ policies to work in!
Do I loathe bureaucrats? You betcha!
July 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
“..Do I loathe bureaucrats? You betcha!..”
psstt..!..never/ever get ‘involved’ with the green party..
if you ‘hate beaurocrats’..
it’ll do your head in..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
join/vote/donate..
but don’t ‘get involved’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
samiam Says:
Why do you throw away aluminium joinery?
Because the ‘frame fraction’ of a typical single glazed aluminium window is around 5-10%. The heat loss from that 5-10% is around 30% of the total system performance!
……………………………..
You mean 30% of the heat loss from the window is the aluminium?
July 19th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
What are the rules for wall insulation if you replace weatherboards with Hardiboards 1cm gap between insulation and sheafing?
July 19th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Basically yeah… the aluminum is several times as conductive as the glass. Seriously nasty and extraordinarily silly to make a window frame of aluminium. The thermal breaks and other trickery in the extrusions used now does reduce the problem but it never never ever will be as good as wood or vinyl. I want wood myself. Done right it lasts a long time, seals nicely and keeps you warm.
That is one of the odd things about NZ. The Real Estate guys seem to think Aluminium joinery is good and apparently a lot of New Zealanders believe it too. Go figure.
BJ
July 19th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Aluminium joinery doesn’t rot, doesn’t rust and doesn’t need repainting. In short it’s convenient. What else matters, eh
July 20th, 2008 at 5:46 am
BJ,
I would say it would be extraordinarily silly to have windows made from wood.
They warp, need painting every five years, putty to be replaced every ten years, usually made from a hardwood to try and prevent warping and rotting.
First thing I look for when I view a property. Wooden windows? Dont even bother getting out of the car.
Probably slightly biased becasue I hate painting window with a passion.
With the environmental change from enamel (oil based paints) to water borne. I have yet to see a report on how well the water borne enamels perform outside. Could well be that in future with oil based (even coconut or rape seed oil) not being made anymore (Resene dont even make oil based paints anymore) you may well end up in a situation where you will not have a paint on the market suitable for our windows.
Vinyl is petroleum based? Will they be available in the future?
Give me recyclable aluminium anytime. The critical point with aluminium windows is the interface between the window frame and the cladding. It must be flashed properly.
For security and warm retention the glass should be bedded on a layer of silicone (cheap) or better still sikaflex (expensive) before the rubber seal is placed around to glass. Not many installers will do this.
July 20th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Actually this whole topic is (basically) about information? The authorities offer broad advice but don’t want to offend the business sector. Even Consumer gives blunted sterile information (I think). It’s not until you dig around that you find that batts , building paper and water tightness may not be enough in the walls of a wood framed home.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I’ll vote for wooden joinery here, done right that is. I too hate re-painting rattly old double hung windows, I hate living with them too.
I’ve installed modern cedar frames with state of the art (for NZ) double glazing with low-e glass and argon gas fill.
The wood has to be high quality, there must be seals on all interfaces, the rebate that hold the glass must be done right, sealant must be used, putty must not be used, timber glazing beads are the correct way to fix the glass. Lastly stain, not paint.
The results are spectacular and far far cheaper than thermally broken alu frames. No condensation whatsoever.
I have re-stained every year for three years and probably won’t need to again now for five, it takes not much longer than cleaning the glass anyway! A far cry from enamel painting that’s for sure!
I did have issues at the design stage as the NZ glazing industry don’t seem to want to talk to anyone outside the aluminium industry. Europe has sorted out the correct standards here and we should adopt them.
Old wooden windows do have a bad reputation, mostly centered around paint breakdown and eventual rot, fair enough. It’s worth having a careful look at precisely how that breakdown occurred. On nearly every old window that was painted properly when it was new, it’s the condensation running down the glass and getting BETWEEN the glass and the paint that has lead to the eventual breakdown of the system. Externally it’s the same it’s the water getting between the putty and the glass that causes it to crap out. It’s NOT the wood and it’s NOT the paint. Its the condensation/rain. Double glazing fixes that (interior) problem in one hit. Correct fitting systems without putty sort out the exterior.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:32 am
What if you had windows with a valve and suction pump?
July 20th, 2008 at 10:55 am
The thermal performance of doors and windows can’t be important. If it were, the government would require the suppliers to publish the thermal insulation rating of those doors and windows
Trevor.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I guess the HERS scheme and the star rating of houses is supposed to address that. Of course you are right and there should be a minimum standard that must be met and, if you ask me, that standard should be high.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I don’t think the HERS scheme or house star rating would provide the information needed by someone (like me) wanting to build their own home.
Trevor.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I sincerely hope it does! If not then it’s a failure. The idea is to get this information from an independent ex-spurt (like me of course!) with the whole goal of helping you achieve a high rating.
The best place to prove the system will work is to sort out the sate housing stock, and schools, and every publicly owned building.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Correct me if I am wrong and point me where I can get the data, but I was under the impression that those schemes targeted existing buildings rather than buildings at the planning stage. As such, they meet a need, but not necessarily my need.
I like the idea of sorting out the energy needs of our schools, as it can show our future generations what can be done.
Trevor.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
The scheme is aimed directly at buildings at the concept/design stage. That’s the only chance we get to cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s.
Ideally start with a bare bit of land and go consult your friendly HERS professional at that time, before you even have a dwelling in mind.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I dunno Gerrit. I have lived in houses with wooden windows most of my life.
I’ve pointed and painted and caulked too, but I had windows that are 70 years old working perfectly well and keeping the cold out better than any of the aluminium joinery on the house I am in. Not rotting, not warping… exposed to a pretty severe marine environment too. Double-hung. You know, the kind that go up and down to open and you can put a screen on the outside? I’ve noticed these aren’t all that popular here in NZ. The old fashioned things with sash weights and little pulleys
I miss having decent windows.
That said the most modern thermal break equipped aluminium isn’t all that bad. It does help more than I am perhaps allowing here… but I’ve never seen a double-hung aluminium window.
respectfully
BJ
July 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Thing about those double hung. There was a full set of storm windows/screens for them. Winter you’d hang the storm window and got your double glazing. Summer you hung the screen so you could open the thing wide and keep the insects out.
Simple, cheap and effective. Easy to fix.
BJ
July 20th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
bj you can get double hung ali windows but they cost an arm and leg
July 29th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Is there anywhere I can look up the thermal performance of various window frame options?
Trevor.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Try..
http://www.wers.net/
July 29th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Brilliant!