I'm amazed that this discussion has carried forward for nearly two years! In that time I have moved to another coastal area (cooler climate and better proximity to children) and this time found most of the discussion still rings true. Finding another home here was an incredibly frustrating journey made all the worse by a mad investor rush in the area just when we arrived to start our home search. That search took the best part of six months and in the end there would only be three or four houses to choose from in any week. Result? A rushed purchase, a desperately inadequate building inspection and failure on my part to notice poor bathroom tiling, shortage of closet and storage pace, just how small the lounge room really was, and etc. I disappointed myself because I had let the pressures beat me and now we are trying to resolve all of these issues in a home designed and built by one of this states most respected project home builders 25 years ago. Having now studied the floor plan with more care I realise it was put together (designed) in modular fashion - most bedrooms have similar dimensions and the living areas are all approximately the same size as if the designer simply juggled three boxes of one size and four of another size and then worked out traffic flow. Then he must have thrown them all in the air to see how they would land and that was design number two! And etc and so on. This house aside, we looked at a great many during the six months because we had to broaden our search above and below budget trying to find something. There were massive termite problems, leaky roofs, asbestos galore, gazzumping at every turn, almost all but the most expensive properties suffered at least one substantial fail for the most basic of needs and to top it off the best home in our price range just happened to be built on flood prone land - approved by council who put the flood signs up less than five years earlier. We live and learn. Then there were the real estate agents, but that would take another two years and I doubt the internet has enough free page space available!!! OK, I hear you, they're not ALL bad...

The charring of wood as a method of preservation is nothing new and was known to European and Mediterranean builders as well as Asians. I have for years charred the bases of deck posts and such as a rot preventative. The practice is mentioned in John Fitchen's classic book Building Construction Before Mechanization. Some of the samples of this shown above are a bit crude. The most beautiful finishes of this type are rather labor intensive as some of the char can be brushed back off to some extent to reveal wood grain. The planter shown below has been coated on the interior with linseed oil, blackjack and turpentine and then set alight with a roofer's torch. The finish is cooked into the wood producing a carbonized insect and decay resistant surface. It gets filled with soil and so the char will be seen only at the edges.

You know, Alipetecampbell, I think a lot of good could be done by simply not allowing houses to be built unless they're designed by a qualified architect and signed off by a qualified engineer, and built to minimum standards that ensure proper passive climate control (insulation, glazing, orientation etc.) and social linkage issues - let's ban the food desert and the nappy valley. Developers have a vested interest in building cheap, and those rubbish houses sell because (a) there's not much else on the market and (b) superficially they look okay. You'd argue that what I'm proposing would raise housing costs, but let's stop making billionaires of developers, let's stop councils from charging silly money for planning fees (eminently doable if housing is professionally designed) and, as I have said above, use less land for more housing AND more greenspace too, and the cuts in cost these measures would create could go towards making all houses better.

Hi Lindel Love the design and view! There are a couple of solutions here, depending on what the requirements are (ie cost versus energy efficiency). To your original query, the Colorbond will give a better maintenance long term but obviously the energy efficiency is zilch. The structure behind needs to do the insulation work as well as be structural. From a cost point of view timber framing is cheaper but the wall insulation is limited. You can however use a structural insulated panel to be both the structure as well as the insulation for everything from the upper floor to the walls and roof.... We are doing an extension in this at present which will actually look like a 1930's character style to match the existing home. I'm not familiar with your BAL but we have found that when we get such high insulation ratings from the walls and roof it has usually enabled us to cover the losses from windows and given the ability to have larger windows without the need for double glazing. Regarding the timber, I would be considering an artificial product unless you want to do the maintenance. Cheers