# Building with stone



## harto1 (7 Oct 2004)

Has anyone experience/advice on using stone for the 2nd skin of a timberframe house ?
Natural stone and not reconstituted stone.
What is the best method of building the outer wall. Build a block wall then clad the stone onto it or just build a single stone wall. If the second method how wide does it need to be ?
Any idea of current prices for using natural stone and stonemason rates ?
Could stone excavated from the site be used (hard shale), assuming there is plenty of it, which there seems to be.


----------



## heinbloed (7 Oct 2004)

*stone*

Why do you want to use stone on the outside?


----------



## Marie (7 Oct 2004)

*stone*

This evening I watched "Grand Designs Abroad" (Channel 4) where a Dublin architect and his wife bought a ruined stone church in Mayo and converted it into a home.  The redesign included repointing the existing stonework (which was left exposed outside and within) and building a timber frame within which was then clad to form the individual rooms.

Most of the design retained the whole height from ground to bell-tower level.  Apart from about 20 unobtrusive metal strips high on the structure which were cemented over and into which the tops of the uprights were screwed, the internal wooden frame was independent of the stone outer skin.

(incidentally Heinbloed, they used a geothermal heating underfloor system and there were a couple of great "arial views" of it so I have just understood......a picture beats a thousand words!!) and they represented geothermal heating as the best for large open internal spaces.

There is a "Grand Designs" book available from bookshops, author the lovely Kevin McCloud and this particular design would be in it.  It did work very well!  

From Heinbloed's exclamation though is there some energy-based reason why exposed stone shouldn't be kept?


----------



## harto1 (7 Oct 2004)

*Re: stone*

Hello Heinbloed,

My reasons for using stone are well,
1) Aesthetic value.
In my opinion, a natural stone wall is the most attractive finish to a property 
(in the right setting of course)

2) Investment value.
Can add a significant value to a property above it's cost (again in the right setting)

3) Sustainable option.
Natural product which has low embodied energy used it's production. If the on-site 
stone works out then minimal transport costs even if other local stone is used. 
All in all I would say a big green thumbs up.

4) Probably the least favourable but most significant is ** Planning stipulation **  :lol


----------



## heinbloed (8 Oct 2004)

*stone*

To Marie:
Yes,there is an energy based reason to why stone should not be used on the outside of a standard wall structure.A.) it is expensive because of it's embodied energy-pay someone to make it and he/she will waste the money on energy,the so called Grey energy B.)the stone cools down during the night and will keep the wall cold during the day C.)it's a heavy structure and needs a heavy foundation D.) it's fixings are hidden until it collapses  -rust and decay E.) it has no positive thermal storage capacity(going back to point A.) because heat is usually most in demand during day and evening at which time the stone would be colder than the surrounding atmosphere and therefore COOLING the outer walls.Only when the outside temperature drops below the stone wall temperature THEN it would be a thermal gain for the building.But then the occupants will be in bed and the heat demand of the building will be low.
And in the morning,when the heat demand increases......see above.
Why wears the polar bear a fur on the OUTSIDE?It could wear flesh and bones on the outside,couldn't it?!
Believe simple logic -and no fancy sales men brochures/books.
Can stone walls breath/exchange moisture?And if the answer is yes:will they get wet and cool down even more the outer sleeve?A wet wall is 6 degrees colder than a dry wall-evaporation cools.I am afraid there is nothing positive about a stone clad wall.I am not saying there is nothing positive about stone as a building material.But use the right material in it's right place-that is the approach to sustainable building.

And to harto:
Yes, if there is a market than it has investment value.But would you buy a house because it has a stone wall?Why are you building a house-are there no stone wall houses available?
Aestethical value it would have .........in Kerry.
Low embodied energy:How do you justify the price of it?Grey energy is the energy spend/wasted in units of money.It has to be earned,it will be spend......A renewable product in a free market(not a museum/collector piece) costs what its embodied energy does cost.And a stone clad costs more than any other material.Well,precious metals might cost more,depending on the thickness.Just thinking about it:Could you get your house gilded for the price of the stone clad?I'm only joking, but figure it out,it would be interesting for us.
Think about it's aestheticall/retail value....


----------



## harto1 (8 Oct 2004)

*Re: stone*

Hello Heinbloed,
I don't really like the attitude in your reply and disagree with quite a lot you say.

"Yes, if there is a market than it has investment value. But would you buy a house because it has a stone wall? 
Why are you building a house-are there no stone wall houses available? "
My initial questions were relating to stone, but that is not the only part of 
the house or the construction choices that are to be made. One of the main 
reasons for building a house yourself is to get the house you want as opposed to 
a house a developer gives you and at a reduced cost. If the house with the stone 
wall fulfiled all my requirements and I could afford it then yes I would 
consider it. Therein lies the answer to the first part of your statement. 
Affordability. Stone finished houses are priced higher from my experience. That 
is the market.

"Aestethical value it would have .........in Kerry."
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous comment. As I mentioned a stone finished house 
works in the right setting. I am not talking about putting it the middle of a 
city or a housing estate. It is a countryside setting and a stone finish will 
sit naturally into the landscape far better than any other finish. Admittedly it 
is a taste thing and everybody is different, but I would say that anybody who 
cannot see any beauty in natural stone could be classed as visually challenged. 
In Ireland we have a long historical connection with stone and stone buildings 
so it is part of our built heritage. You may be a fan of the grey look 
industrial concrete finish for example, but at the end of the day that is 
personal taste.

"Low embodied energy:How do you justify the price of it? Grey 
energy is the energy spend/wasted in units of money.It has to be earned,it will 
be spend......"
As I mentioned it has investment value. If it costs me X to put in and it's 
contribution to the finished product is X + Y, then I have made a positive 
investment. Simple really. Of course, I only realise that investment value if I 
sell, but that is not why I am doing it. Every choice of finishing the outside 
costs in varying degrees. The outside of the house is something you have to look 
at fairly regularly, if you don't like your choice of finish then it's not money 
well spent.

"A renewable product in a free market(not a museum/collector piece) 
costs what its embodied energy does cost.And a stone clad costs more than any 
other material.Well,precious metals might cost more,depending on the 
thickness.Just thinking about it:Could you get your house gilded for the price 
of the stone clad?I'm only joking, but figure it out,it would be interesting for 
us. Think about it's aestheticall/retail value...."
Sure I know stone is more expensive, but my whole point is that I will be trying 
to use material which is excavated from the ground where the house is to be 
built. This is where I see the value on many fronts, not least giving the house 
a real connection to the site where it is built. Building a house you have many 
choices to make about materials and products. Making those choices is not only 
about price it is a combination of quality, value for money, abilty to do the 
job it was designed for, looks, longevity ... sometimes you choose cheap over 
expensive and sometimes not !


"A.) it is expensive because of it's embodied energy-pay someone to make it and 
he/she will waste the money on energy,the so called Grey energy "
All products you will use to clad a house have to be made in some way and will use energy. 
Concrete and cement being among the highest.

B)the stone cools down during the night and will keep the wall cold during the day "
I take it here you are referring to the use of the outside wall to heat the 
house or store heat with it's thermal mass. Then with your polar bear comment I 
take it you mean that the insulating layer should be on the outside. From my 
readings and research, this is one theory for building, which is probably not as 
prevalent in Ireland as it could be. Builders in Ireland tend to stick with what 
they know and they don't like change, so bad or good the old double skin 
blockwork has been the standard choice since the year dot. After looking at the 
different options for building, traditional block, steel frame, sips, icf and 
poroton blocks, I decided to go with timberframe with a highly insulated 
envelope , so that the effects of the outside wall are minimalised. The building 
will rely on the high levels of insulation to maintain the heat, the solid floor 
provides some thermal mass and passive heating gain from larger south facing 
windows.

"C.)it's a heavy structure and needs a heavy foundation "
Yes this certainly is a genuine consideration.

"D.) it's fixings are hidden until it collapses -rust and decay "
I don't understand this comment. Some of the oldest structures in the world are stone built.

"E.) it has no positive thermal storage capacity(going back to point A.) because 
heat is usually most in demand during day and evening at which time the stone 
would be colder than the surrounding atmosphere and therefore COOLING the outer 
walls.Only when the outside temperature drops below the stone wall temperature 
THEN it would be a thermal gain for the building.But then the occupants will be 
in bed and the heat demand of the building will be low. And in the morning,when 
the heat demand increases......see above."
Don't see what relation this has to point A) but see my reply to your point B).


This has gone on a bit eh ...


----------



## heinbloed (9 Oct 2004)

*stoned*

Hi harto!
It wasn't my intention to insult your attitude of what a house is good for resp. what it should look like.But you got my point.Using stone on the outside is a waste of energy ,a waste of money and is only sell able to someone who does not care about these two points.
We will get the energy pass for buildings soon.Than a building with a stone clad wall will certainly be score worse (in investment terms) than a building with an insulating outer layer.
Kerry:My comment is not ridiculous-it's the building regulations of Kerry.
And if you use the rubble/gravel that a digger is is heaping up for a cladding you HAVE to add a lot of cement to make it stick to the wall.How else would it be adhered to the timber frame?Unless you use millions of little nails/screws to fix it onto the ......onto the what actually?The vapor barrier of the timber frame ?
Get an engineer to explain you the statics of building material.And find an official from the planning office who might believe the story of using excavations on the outside of the building.It would work only if the material is A.) clay or B.) cut to size rock. Not the material that a digger leaves behind.And if you ever had a chisel in your hands you would be able to estimate the monetary value of real masonry work.
Are you going for the cheapest way of building a house-timber frame-and want to put a cheap collar onto the suite to make it looking expensive?
It won't work. 
And get a banker to explain you the meanings of investment.Investment are made for profits.Nothing else.
Spending something for the feel good factor is no investment.Of course -a good sales men can give you the feeling that you invested in yourself,but a sales men is no investor,his job is to get your money.
I have the feeling that a timber frame company is luring you into a project that you obviously can't manage.Be carefull.


----------



## harto1 (11 Oct 2004)

*Re: stoned*

"And if you use the rubble/gravel that a digger is is heaping up for a cladding 
you HAVE to add a lot of cement to make it stick to the wall. How else would it 
be adhered to the timber frame?Unless you use millions of little nails/screws to 
fix it onto the ......onto the what actually? The vapor barrier of the timber 
frame ? Get an engineer to explain you the statics of building material.And find 
an official from the planning office who might believe the story of using 
excavations on the outside of the building.It would work only if the material is 
A.) clay or B.) cut to size rock. Not the material that a digger leaves behind."

Listen stop with the insulting and derogatory comments. I am not building a 
toytown house here. Have you heard of building regulations ? Perhaps it is your 
lack of command of English, so I will cut you a little slack this time, but you 
are walking a very fine line with your insults buddy. You obviously don't read 
English very well either and so you shouldn't post replies if you don't 
understand the question. Take a little bit of time to read my initial question 
properly. (My turn to insult !)

To spell it out for you, I asked for anyone's experience of using a stone built 
or stone clad outside wall on a house. What I was looking to hear about were 
experiences of labour costs, choice of material, stonemason abilities. We have 
the possibility of using properly excavated good quality stone (not sh%t rubble) 
from the site. Of course a stonemason is required to dress and prepare this 
stone for use. OF COURSE. OF COURSE. OF COURSE. Isn't this perfectly obvious !! 
I am interested in hearing anyone's experience of doing something similar. In 
effect all we are doing is cutting out the quarry or stone supplier. It's not 
rocket science. Don't make derisive remarks when you know nothing about 
something. I am not pulling flouncy ideas from a top hat here. I have a reliable 
engineer and architect on board for this project. This is a real solution we are 
talking about here. If it wasn't a valid consideration it would not have reached 
this stage. We are building a highly insulated house with targeted u-values well 
in excess of the standard building regulations. We are not aiming for a mutton 
dressed as lamb house. We are not looking for particularly cheap nor 
particularly expensive solutions. We are looking for good quality, good 
performance and at the best price we can get for this.


"We will get the energy pass for buildings soon.Than a building with a stone 
clad wall will certainly be score worse (in investment terms) than a building 
with an insulating outer layer." 
Not necessarily. An old uninsulated stone house certainly will have it's value 
altered in that it may only be attractive as a renovation property. In fact any 
older house which has not been upgraded to modern insulation standards will fare 
badly in this classification. Newer houses, particularly those built to the 2002 
building regulations for insulation should measure up favourably. This house has 
been designed specifically with this energy classification in mind and to 
protect our investment. Do you really think that with this new directive about 
to come into place, somebody would purposefully build an energy inefficient 
house and waste hard earned money on what is typically the biggest investment of 
their lives. I am now angry that you would make such an assumption without 
knowing the full facts. 

A building's energy pass will be based on a combination of factors not only 
insulation, but also performance of boilers, ventilation, glazing etc. If we 
concentrate on new buildings here, which should be constructed to a suitable 
standard energy wise, then what you are down to is splitting hairs and trying 
determining which building method is performing better under this new 
classification. Until we start to see the actual results of these 
classifications based on the real energy use of the building we don't know for sure, 
as predicted estimates for all the various methods are circumstantial.

"And get a banker to explain you the meanings of investment.Investment are made 
for profits.Nothing else."
You obviously know nothing about finance then.

"Spending something for the feel good factor is no investment." 
No it's based on what the market perceives. The market says it has value. I like 
the look of it. Therefore to me, it has double value.

"Of course -a good sales men can give you the feeling that you invested in 
yourself,but a sales men is no investor,his job is to get your money."
There are no salesmen involved. These are my choices based on a number of 
factors, multiple source advice and research being key here.

"I have the feeling that a timber frame company is luring you into a project 
that you obviously can't manage.Be carefull."
As I said earlier the decision to go with timberframe was made after evaluating 
different build methods and matching these to our requirements.


----------



## heinbloed (14 Oct 2004)

*Ignoramous*

Sorry, I'm an idiot! Think I know it all.


----------



## gjjjohn (1 Oct 2009)

cost of stone to be built labour only approx  e 150/200 per m2


----------

