Great question! There are two basic approaches: infilling the frame or wrapping the frame. I chose to wrap the frame, which looked like this (inside to outside): a layer of 1x pine boards, a layer of tar paper, a layer of 1” rigid foam insulation (2” for the roof), a layer of house wrap, and a final, exterior layer of 1x pine board and batten siding.
Certainly, you can build community with 2x4s and CMUs! You can also build community on a chain gang or in the gulag. Not all communities are built under equally auspicious conditions. My point in this essay is that traditional building methods tend to be more conducive to the best kinds of human community than modern methods, and that we should learn from tradition even as we move forward. I am in nowise suggesting that community is impossible with modern methods, and no one should fail to attempt a project because they could not manage to make it sufficiently "traditional". I am principled, but I am not a purist.
That said, it is worth asking: would 30 people show up to lay CMU for 12+ hours in the summer sun just because they were invited to do it? I've never heard of such a thing. Yet 30 people accepted an invitation to timber frame in the same conditions. This deserves examination: what is different about the work of timber framing that it tends to be considered a joyful labor rather than a toilsome one?
The question of CMU specifically is an interesting one, as I would argue that CMU is an inherently inhuman building material compared to its venerable ancestor, the brick. The brick is the right shape and weight to be held and worked by the human hand. It can be made entirely by hand on site. Its shape admits of a delightful variety of cuts, shapes, and moldings that enhance both the beauty and the strength of the whole construction. Laying CMU is a fast way to develop arthritis: it is both too large and too heavy to be comfortably worked by the human form in the same manner as brick. It can only be laid in one fashion, it cannot be cut or stood on end or rotated 45 degrees or laid in an arch. Whatever its merits, CMU is decidedly inferior to the brick as an expression of the human craftsman.
You may, of course, build as best you can and develop strong communities with even the most unsavory of materials, under the worst of conditions. But these are instances of sticking it to the man, of using the tools of your oppressor's against them, of indomitable human spirit. A people in peace time, asking how they ought to build in the best of all possible worlds, is engaged in a wholly different task. I submit that one can speculate about the answer to the later without denigrating the achievement of the former.
This is very cool but I got stuck on a question from the inspo photo -- where does the insulation go? In Ohio you surely need it.
Great question! There are two basic approaches: infilling the frame or wrapping the frame. I chose to wrap the frame, which looked like this (inside to outside): a layer of 1x pine boards, a layer of tar paper, a layer of 1” rigid foam insulation (2” for the roof), a layer of house wrap, and a final, exterior layer of 1x pine board and batten siding.
If you are interested in seeing more photos from the build, check out the following link: https://www.truewestcraftworks.com/projects/timber-frame-workshop
I am glad that you found community, and I agree that heavy timbers are beautiful.
But I think people can also build community while nailing 2x4s or stacking CMUs.
Certainly, you can build community with 2x4s and CMUs! You can also build community on a chain gang or in the gulag. Not all communities are built under equally auspicious conditions. My point in this essay is that traditional building methods tend to be more conducive to the best kinds of human community than modern methods, and that we should learn from tradition even as we move forward. I am in nowise suggesting that community is impossible with modern methods, and no one should fail to attempt a project because they could not manage to make it sufficiently "traditional". I am principled, but I am not a purist.
That said, it is worth asking: would 30 people show up to lay CMU for 12+ hours in the summer sun just because they were invited to do it? I've never heard of such a thing. Yet 30 people accepted an invitation to timber frame in the same conditions. This deserves examination: what is different about the work of timber framing that it tends to be considered a joyful labor rather than a toilsome one?
The question of CMU specifically is an interesting one, as I would argue that CMU is an inherently inhuman building material compared to its venerable ancestor, the brick. The brick is the right shape and weight to be held and worked by the human hand. It can be made entirely by hand on site. Its shape admits of a delightful variety of cuts, shapes, and moldings that enhance both the beauty and the strength of the whole construction. Laying CMU is a fast way to develop arthritis: it is both too large and too heavy to be comfortably worked by the human form in the same manner as brick. It can only be laid in one fashion, it cannot be cut or stood on end or rotated 45 degrees or laid in an arch. Whatever its merits, CMU is decidedly inferior to the brick as an expression of the human craftsman.
You may, of course, build as best you can and develop strong communities with even the most unsavory of materials, under the worst of conditions. But these are instances of sticking it to the man, of using the tools of your oppressor's against them, of indomitable human spirit. A people in peace time, asking how they ought to build in the best of all possible worlds, is engaged in a wholly different task. I submit that one can speculate about the answer to the later without denigrating the achievement of the former.
You have 400+ words. I have none.